Supreme Court Strikes Down Colorado Conversion Therapy Ban for Minors

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against a Colorado law that prohibited conversion therapy for minors, delivering an 8-1 decision on Tuesday.

The Court decided that the law infringed on First Amendment rights by discriminating against particular viewpoints.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, in the majority opinion, stated that the law’s restriction on therapists using “talk therapy” to assist minors in altering their sexual orientation or gender identity, while still permitting affirmation of those identities, constituted a content-based restriction on free speech rather than merely a regulation of medical practice.

“The First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering the truth,” the majority’s opinion claimed.

“The fact that the State’s viewpoint regulation falls only on licensed health care professionals does not change the equation. The First Amendment protects the rights of all to speak their minds,” it continued.

Kaley Chiles, a professional counselor with a Master’s degree in clinical mental health and a license in Colorado, challenged the law on First Amendment grounds related to her therapy practices.

“Kaley is a licensed professional counselor in Colorado. She is a committed Christian who seeks to live out her faith in every aspect of her life, including her work. She has worked with clients who have experienced trauma and has branched into areas like addiction and personality disorders. Some clients seek help for issues like pornography use, while others want to feel more at ease with their biological sex,” according to the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

“Many of Kaley’s clients share her Christian faith. In fact, it’s often why they seek help from her, rather than other counselors with secular viewpoints… But Colorado is trying to infiltrate these private counselor-client conversations, violating Kaley’s freedom of speech,” the conservative advocacy group added.

The court noted that while “conversion therapy” may invoke images of extreme methods, the Colorado law actually bans any practices aimed at changing an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

Chiles stated that she exclusively uses talk therapy and does not rely on any physical methods or medications. Instead, she focuses on the personal goals her clients express, striving to respect their right to self-determination.

The Colorado law from 2019 prohibits licensed counselors from conducting conversion therapy with minors, which includes attempting to alter sexual orientation or gender identity, alongside efforts to modify behaviors or reduce same-sex attraction.

The opinion asserted that while acceptance and support of “identity exploration and development,” including assistance with gender transition, is allowed under the law, it still discriminates against certain viewpoints.

“As applied to Ms. Chiles, Colorado’s law regulates the content of her speech and prescribes what views she may or may not express, discriminating based on viewpoint,” the opinion expressed.

On the other hand, Justice Ketanji Jackson delivered a dissenting opinion, stating that the majority’s view ignores the prevailing medical consensus that considers conversion therapy ineffective and harmful, especially in a professional context.

“Under our precedents, bedrock First Amendment principles have far less salience when the speakers are medical professionals and their treatment-related speech is being restricted incidentally to the State’s regulation of the provision of medical care,” Jackson stated.

Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, provided a concurring opinion acknowledging viewpoint discrimination, but pointed out that a “viewpoint-neutral law” would present a different, more complex issue. While they agreed with the majority that the Colorado law was unconstitutional, they focused specifically on viewpoint discrimination.

Currently, over twenty states have enacted similar laws, and many observers believe this decision could have wider implications. This ruling from the Supreme Court overturned a lower circuit court’s decision and returned the case for further proceedings based on the Court’s new interpretation.

“When my young clients come to me for counsel, they often want to discuss issues of gender and sexuality. I look forward to being able to help them when they choose the goal of growing comfortable with their bodies,” Chiles remarked, according to a press release from the Alliance Defending Freedom.