Supreme Court Rules Against Colorado’s “Conversion Therapy” Law

The Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling on Tuesday, striking down Colorado’s “conversion therapy” law. This law had barred therapists from assisting minors in reconciling their “gender identity” with their biological reality.

In a notable 8-1 decision, the court expressed concerns that the law could infringe on the First Amendment by selectively allowing some viewpoints while excluding others. Interestingly, the only dissent came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who notably did not clarify the definition of a woman in her remarks.

Colorado’s legislation, which was enacted in 2019, is one of over 20 state laws banning “conversion therapy.” While it prohibits harmful practices, historically tied to conversion therapy like electroshock treatment, it also broadly outlaws any professional services aimed at altering a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. This includes efforts to change behavior or reduce attractions toward individuals of the same sex.

Kaylee Childs, a Christian counselor, took legal action against the state regarding this law. She claimed, “People thrive when they live consistently with God’s plan, including their biological sex,” arguing that the law limits her ability to utilize talk therapy with minors seeking to understand their sexuality and identity in relation to their biological reality.

Childs contended that the law contravenes the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment by forbidding agreed-upon conversations based on personal beliefs. It only permits counselors to suggest “gender-affirming care” to minors, which can encompass social transition, hormonal treatments, and surgeries—practices Childs labeled as experimental and ideologically driven.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, indicating that the question at hand was fairly narrow. He pointed out that Childs was not attempting to dismantle Colorado’s laws entirely but was advocating for the protection of her conversations with underage clients.

He stated, “The issue of assisting minors grappling with gender identity is hotly debated. However, Colorado’s law on conversion therapy goes beyond just banning physical intervention. In such cases, we end up censoring speech based on perspective.”

Gorsuch further articulated that while Colorado may see its policy as crucial for public health, a history of censorious governance reflects similar beliefs as well. “The First Amendment protects against such suppressive efforts. It safeguards the rights of all Americans to express thoughts freely, viewing a marketplace of ideas as the best method for truth-seeking,” he added.

Justice Jackson, on the other hand, voiced apprehensions about this ruling, suggesting the majority was “playing with fire” and fearing potential harm to the public. She noted, “Until this point, licensed professionals were required to adhere to established standards in patient treatment, ensuring quality healthcare for Americans.”

The impact of this decision is expected to resonate throughout nearly 20 states and Washington, D.C., which have similar laws that could be influenced.

Jim Campbell from Alliance Defending Freedom, representing Childs, hailed the ruling as a “significant victory.” He emphasized, “Children deserve effective guidance that affirms their biological reality. Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a triumph for free speech and for families eager to support their children.”

Childs described the ruling as a milestone for counselors and families nationwide, anticipating that her young clients would want to delve into gender and sexuality discussions. “Counselors must not be confined to promoting state-approved objectives, often leading to harmful practices,” she stated, asserting that this ruling benefits children and families alike.

This decision exemplifies the conservative tilt of the current Supreme Court, which has shown a tendency to challenge the actions of transgender activists. With similar pending cases, including whether biological males identifying as transgender should participate in women’s sports, this ruling adds further complexity to an ongoing national conversation.

The case in question is Chiles v. Salazar, U.S. Supreme Court No. 24-539.