Colorado Urges Justices to Uphold State’s Conversion Therapy Ban

Colorado Attorney General Philip Weiser (D) is urging the US Supreme Court to uphold a state law banning conversion therapy, saying it’s a legitimate regulation of a specific health-care treatment.

The law, which prohibits licensed professionals from using a therapy designed to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity, protects patients from a treatment that violates professional health-care standards, Weiser said in Tuesday’s brief. Conversion therapy is ineffective and associated with harms such as depression, anxiety, and suicidality, he said in arguments on behalf of Patty Salazar, executive director of the state’s Department of Regulatory Agencies.

The top court should adhere to precedent recognizing states’ power to regulate health care to protect their citizens, Weiser said.

The justices’ decision in the case will have widespread effect, as about 25 states have similar laws, some of which also have been challenged in court. It also could have far-reaching consequences for other discrimination and consumer protection laws, scholars have said.

Professional counselor Kaley Chiles sued Colorado to overturn the ban, saying she wants to help her patients meet therapy goals that may include exploring their sexual orientation or gender identity. She fears the state will take disciplinary action against her if she does so, but the state hasn’t taken any action against her to date.

The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the law in September 2024, and the Supreme Court granted review the following March. The case is set for oral arguments Oct. 7.

Standard of Review

Colorado’s law prohibits licensed counselors from engaging in one specific treatment, Weiser said. Conversion therapy “does not work and can lead to a lifetime of harms for young people, including separation from their faith and family.” Banning it isn’t even controversial, he added, as every major medical association in the US supports prohibiting it, he added.

States traditionally have had the authority to regulate professional health-care treatments to protect their citizens, Weiser said. They have exercised that power through professional practice laws, including those regulating mental-health professionals. The First Amendment, moreover, allows states to regulate treatments that violate their standards of care—and the fact that the treatment involves talking doesn’t change the constitutional analysis, he said.

Weiser urged the justices to review the conversion therapy ban’s constitutionality using a rational basis standard. This level of review requires courts to ask whether a provision is rationally related to legitimate state interests. Examining regulations of treatments that use words under a more-exacting strict scrutiny standard would ignore “the reality of professional healthcare” and “would strip states of their power to protect patients from substandard care,” he said.

The law satisfies both standards of review, in any event. Colorado’s “interest in protecting minors from ineffective and harmful healthcare practices is of the highest possible order,” Weiser said. Additionally, the law is narrowly tailored to regulate only one specific discredited practice, and it doesn’t limit licensed professionals’ ability to communicate outside of therapy with their patients or others about sexual orientation, gender identity, or their opinions on conversion therapy, he said.

Alliance Defending Freedom, Arrington Law Firm, and Pearman Law Firm represent Chiles.

The case is Chiles v. Salazar, U.S., No. 24-539, response brief 8/19/25.