Supreme Court Strikes Down Colorado's Ban on Conversion Therapy for Minors

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling in the case of Chiles v. Salazar, overturning a Colorado law that prohibited conversion therapy for minors.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, asserted that the law “censors speech based on viewpoint.” He emphasized that while Colorado may view its policy as vital for public health, history shows that governments often impose censorship under similar pretenses. “The First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country,” he stated.

The court found that lower courts failed to apply a stringent enough standard of review, remanding the case to the 10th Circuit for further examination under strict scrutiny, the most rigorous judicial review standard.

In a notable dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed concerns about the implications of the ruling. She read from her 35-page opinion, arguing that states have historically regulated medical care and that treating talk therapy differently undermines established norms. “This flouts centuries of state-standardized regulation of medical care and is, ultimately, nonsensical,” she contended.

Jackson warned that the decision could “open a can of worms,” potentially jeopardizing states' authority to regulate various forms of medical treatment in the future. “The Constitution does not pose a barrier to reasonable regulation of harmful medical treatments just because substandard care comes via speech instead of scalpel,” she added.

Justice Elena Kagan characterized the case as a clear instance of viewpoint discrimination. To illustrate her point, she proposed a hypothetical law mirroring Colorado’s but prohibiting therapy that affirms a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. “The First Amendment would apply in the identical way,” Kagan noted in her concurrence, highlighting the straightforward constitutional issue arising from the state’s suppression of one side of the debate.

This perspective suggested that opponents of conversion therapy might find the ruling favorable; if some states can ban conversion therapy, others could similarly restrict affirming therapies.

The case originated from Kaley Chiles, a licensed therapist who argued that Colorado’s law infringed upon her freedom of speech rights. Under the 2019 legislation, licensed mental health providers are prohibited from offering conversion therapy to individuals under 18, although unlicensed religious counselors are exempt.

Chiles claimed the law limits her First Amendment rights by preventing her from counseling minors who wish to “resist same-sex relationships or align the client’s sense of identity and biological sex.” However, she clarified that she does not intend to impose her beliefs on clients.

Represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization known for its challenges to LGBTQ+ rights and its role in overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022, Chiles's case has drawn significant attention.

Despite its historical use, conversion therapy has been widely discredited, with no evidence supporting its effectiveness in altering sexual orientation or gender identity. Research indicates that LGBTQ+ individuals subjected to such practices experience elevated rates of suicidality, depression, and anxiety.