The Supreme Court looks likely to overturn Colorado’s prohibition on mental health professionals conducting “conversion therapy” for minors grappling with issues related to gender identity or sexual orientation.
Kaylee Chiles, a licensed counselor, argues that this legislation infringes on her free speech rights as well as her religious beliefs. She claims it hinders private discussions between counselors and clients.
Approximately 20 states, along with Washington, D.C., have enacted similar laws.
According to the state, the law aims to regulate conduct based on compelling evidence indicating that attempts to alter a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity can be harmful and ineffective.
The oral arguments featured a robust discussion lasting about 90 minutes, during which the court’s conservative majority seemed to lean towards Chiles’ perspective. Several justices suggested that the law could unfairly discriminate against particular viewpoints, as Justice Samuel Alito voiced concerns about potential “viewpoint discrimination.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a question regarding whether state laws could intentionally favor one medical opinion over another—specifically concerning gender-affirming care versus concerns about the risks of conversion therapy.
On the opposing side, some justices supported the state’s assertions, echoing the views of mental health professionals who argue that verbal conversion therapy has generally proven ineffective.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out existing research suggesting that such therapies can inflict emotional and physical harm.
Justices Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts might play key roles in determining whether “talk therapy” should be classified similarly to medical practices. Roberts referred to earlier rulings that didn’t differentiate between types of professional speech.
Chiles identifies as a “practicing Christian” and promotes the idea that individuals thrive when aligned with their biological sex. She maintains that her faith-based counseling aims to help young people resolve unwanted sexual attractions or behaviors without attempting to “heal” or change their sexual orientation.
A small protest in support of Colorado’s law occurred outside the courthouse, while a corresponding rally for Chiles’s group was canceled due to safety issues.
There were stark disagreements among the parties about the effectiveness and ethics of conversion therapy. Colorado claims to have substantial evidence against it, citing dangers like depression and anxiety, whereas Chiles contends that no credible research supports the notion of conversion therapy as detrimental.
Chiles’ attorney argued against state interference in private counseling sessions. Justices voiced various concerns, including whether the mechanics of talk therapy differ from conventional medical treatment.
During discussions, Justice Elena Kagan posed an intriguing scenario involving two doctors offering drastically different advice to the same patient regarding sexual orientation.
Alito expressed skepticism about the politicization of medical standards over time, reminding everyone how ideologies can influence professional judgments.
The Justice Department under Trump supported the argument that the law generates a double standard by allowing some therapeutic practices while banning others aimed at helping minors come to terms with their assigned gender.
Meanwhile, a growing number of courts are facing LGBTQ+-related challenges, including a recent ruling upholding a Tennessee law that restricts specific treatments for transgender teens.
The situation in Colorado has become a politically charged topic, with significant backing from House and Senate Democrats, as well as various medical organizations, for the contested law.
A 2015 report by the Obama administration asserted that conversion therapy for youths should be outlawed, a sentiment reiterated by current federal health agencies, while the Department of Homeland Security declared the outdated report misleading.
The ongoing case, known as Chiles v. Salazar, is expected to conclude with a verdict by summer 2026.
