The US Supreme Court on Tuesday found Colorado’s ban on so‑called “conversion therapy” unconstitutional, ruling it violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.
Colorado’s law prohibited licensed mental health providers from attempting to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of patients under 18. Practitioners who violated the statute faced fines up to $5,000. Similar bans have been enacted in more than 20 US states and in parts of Europe, including Germany. Major medical organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association oppose conversion therapy, and the United Nations has urged a global prohibition, calling the practices discriminatory and harmful.
The law was challenged by Kaley Chiles, a Christian licensed counselor who argued the statute infringed her free‑speech rights. In an 8–1 decision favoring Chiles, the Court reversed a lower court that had upheld the ban. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, saying the law “does not just ban physical interventions. In cases like this, it censors speech based on viewpoint,” and warning that the First Amendment prevents government efforts to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech. The justices remanded the case to the lower court for further review under a stricter First Amendment standard.
The ruling leaves room for states to regulate non‑speech aspects of conversion therapy, including so‑called aversive physical interventions, but blocks speech‑based prohibitions targeting licensed counselors’ communications.
Chiles was represented by James Campbell of the Alliance Defending Freedom, who called the decision “a significant win for free speech, common sense, and families desperate to help their children.” The Trump administration had supported Chiles’ challenge. Colorado’s Democratic governor, Jared Polis — the first openly gay man elected governor in the US — signed the ban into law in 2019.
While many recent Supreme Court rulings have tracked ideological lines, two liberal justices, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, joined the majority in rejecting the ban. Kagan wrote that the constitutional issue was straightforward because the state “suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissenter, warning that the decision undermines states’ ability to regulate medical practices that risk “grave harm to Americans’ health and wellbeing,” and arguing the Constitution does not bar reasonable regulation of harmful medical treatments simply because they involve speech rather than surgical tools.
Edited by: Alex Berry