Supreme Court Will Review Ban on LGBTQ ‘Conversion Therapy’ (1)

The US Supreme Court agreed to consider whether scores of state and local governments are violating the Constitution by barring licensed counselors from trying to change a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

The justices said they will hear a challenge to Colorado’s ban on what critics call “conversion therapy.” A counselor says the 2019 law violates her free speech rights.

The case adds to a growing list of culture-war clashes the Supreme Court has agreed to hear. The justices are already assessing a Tennessee law that outlaws certain medical treatments for transgender children. And in April they will hear a dispute over the use of LGBTQ-friendly books in the classroom and a case over efforts to create the country’s first religious public charter school.

Twenty-eight states and more than 100 other jurisdictions either fully or partially ban the disputed practice, according to Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ advocacy group that tracks laws around the country. The Supreme Court rejected a challenge to Washington state’s ban in 2023.

The Colorado law is being challenged by Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor who says she views her work as an outgrowth of her Christian faith. She is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group that has been behind some of court’s highest profile cases in recent years, including the successful effort to overturn the constitutional right to abortion.

In a call with reporters, Chiles said the law “silences diverse perspectives and interferes with my ability to serve my clients with integrity.” One of her lawyers, ADF’s Jim Campbell, said Chiles had turned away multiple clients because of the law, though he didn’t disclose how many.

In upholding the law, the Denver-based 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals said it legitimately regulates professional conduct and only incidentally affects speech. Colorado officials urged rejection of the appeal, likening the measure to malpractice laws and informed-consent requirements.

The Constitution “allows states to reasonably regulate professional conduct to protect patients from substandard treatment, even when that regulation incidentally burdens speech,” Colorado argued.

The court will hear arguments and rule in the case in the nine-month term that starts in October.

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

(Updates with comments from counselor in sixth paragraph.)

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

Greg Stohr

© 2025 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.