Supreme Court Rules Against LGBTQ ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ban (2)

The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Christian counselor who says she has a constitutional right to engage in talk therapy to try to change a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

Voting 8-1, the justices said Colorado’s ban on what critics call “conversion therapy” for minors infringes on free-speech rights by discriminating on the basis of viewpoint. The ruling casts doubt on similar laws in about half the country.

Colorado’s law “censors speech based on viewpoint,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court. “The First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.”

Twenty-seven states either fully or partially ban the disputed practice, according to Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ advocacy group that tracks laws around the country.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter, and she took the unusual step of reading a summary of her opinion from the bench for emphasis.

The decision “extends the Constitution into uncharted territory in an utterly irrational fashion,” Jackson wrote. “And it ultimately risks grave harm to Americans’ health and wellbeing.”

Two other liberals, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, joined the majority but said the issue would be different if a state law applied equally to both sides of the debate over the treatment for youths who are working through questions about their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Colorado’s law bars any treatment that “attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

It’s the latest in a line of Supreme Court victories for religious conservatives on LGBTQ issues. The court last year upheld state laws barring certain medical treatments for transgender children, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy. The justices are currently considering whether states can bar transgender girls and women from competing on female sports teams at public schools.

And in a recent order on its emergency docket, the court at least temporarily halted California rules that limited what public schools could tell parents about a child’s effort to engage in gender transition.

Christian Counselor

Colorado had yet to enforce the law. It was challenged by Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor who said she views her work as an outgrowth of her Christian faith.

Chiles was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group that has been behind some of the court’s highest profile cases in recent years, including the successful effort to overturn the constitutional right to abortion.

“The US Supreme Court’s decision today is a significant win for free speech, common sense, and families desperate to help their children,” ADF Chief Legal Counsel Jim Campbell, who argued the case in October, said in a statement. “States cannot silence voluntary conversations that help young people seeking to grow comfortable with their bodies.”

LGBTQ-rights groups blasted the ruling.

“Today’s reckless decision means more American kids will suffer,” Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said in a statement. “The court has weaponized free speech in order to prioritize anti-LGBTQ+ bias over the safety, health and wellbeing of children.”

Although the Supreme Court didn’t explicitly strike down the Colorado statute, the majority made clear that the measure couldn’t legally be applied to Chiles and other counselors like her. Gorsuch rejected Colorado’s contention that its law permissibly regulates conduct and only “incidentally” affects speech.

“The state’s law trains directly on the content of her speech and permits her to express some viewpoints but not others,” Gorsuch wrote. “Colorado does not regulate speech incident to conduct; it regulates speech as speech.”

The court has previously said that viewpoint discrimination is virtually always unconstitutional.

In her dissent, Jackson said the Colorado law was a legitimate use of the well-established power of states to regulate medical care and outlaw dangerous practices.

“Stated simply, the majority has failed to appreciate the crucial context in which Chiles’s constitutional claims have arisen,” Jackson wrote. “Chiles is not speaking in the ether; she is providing therapy to minors as a licensed health-care professional.”

The Denver-based 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld the law, saying it legitimately regulates professional conduct and only incidentally affects speech. In defending the measure, Colorado officials likened it to malpractice laws and informed-consent requirements.

The case is Chiles v. Salazar, 24-539.

To contact the reporter on this story:
Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Elizabeth Wasserman at ewasserman2@bloomberg.net

Steve Stroth

© 2026 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.