The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ minors in an 8-1 decision, ruling that the law raised First Amendment problems because it regulated speech based on viewpoint. The case could make similar bans in other states harder to defend.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, saying the state law “censors speech based on viewpoint.” The court sent the case back to a lower court to decide whether Colorado’s law can survive the more demanding legal test that applies when speech rights are at stake. Colorado had been one of roughly two dozen states that banned the discredited practice.
The lawsuit was brought by Christian counselor Kaley Chiles, who argued that the law blocked her from offering voluntary, faith-based counseling to minors. Her lawyers said the state was treating some conversations about gender identity and sexual orientation differently from others. The Trump administration backed her position, and the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group, represented her before the court.
Colorado argued that its law regulated health care, not ideology. State officials said the statute allowed wide-ranging conversations with young people and only barred therapy aimed at changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The state also said the practice has been scientifically discredited and linked to serious harm. In the state’s view, Colorado was protecting minors from harmful treatment, not censoring a protected viewpoint.
The court’s split was unusual in one respect: Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor supported Gorsuch’s view that the law singled out one side of a debate, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented sharply. Jackson warned that the ruling could make it harder for states to regulate medical care at all. She said the decision “opens a dangerous can of worms” because it risks turning ordinary health-care regulation into a constitutional speech fight.
LGBTQ+ advocates condemned the ruling and said it did nothing to change the scientific consensus that conversion therapy is harmful. GLAD Law said the decision would not alter the fact that providers can still face legal consequences for harming patients. The ruling is expected to reverberate well beyond Colorado because the legal reasoning could be used to challenge similar laws elsewhere. With twenty-three states and several others restricting the practice in some form, the court’s decision may force lawmakers to rethink how they write bans on therapy aimed at changing a child’s identity.
The practical impact may unfold in lower courts and state legislatures. Colorado’s law may not be the last one tested, but the ruling gives opponents of similar bans a strong constitutional argument built around speech rather than medical regulation. That is why the case reaches far beyond one counselor and one state.
