Summary (tl;dr)

The U.S. Supreme Court has sent a challenge to Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors back to lower courts, ruling that the ban, as applied to a licensed counselor's talk therapy, must be reviewed under a stricter First Amendment standard.

Essential Background

Conversion therapy is a pseudoscientific practice that attempts to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity to align with heterosexual and cisgender norms. Major medical and mental health organizations widely condemn these practices as ineffective and harmful, citing risks such as depression, anxiety, and increased suicidal ideation, particularly among LGBTQ+ youth. In response to these concerns, Colorado enacted its Minor Conversion Therapy Law in 2019, prohibiting licensed mental health professionals from performing conversion therapy on minors, with similar bans existing in over 20 other states.

The Full Story

On March 31, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in the case Chiles v. Salazar, reversed a lower court's ruling regarding Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors. The Court sided with Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor who argued that Colorado's law infringed upon her First Amendment rights to free speech. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, stated that the Colorado law "censors speech based on viewpoint" and that the lower courts erred by not applying "strict scrutiny" when reviewing the ban. The case has now been remanded back to the lower courts to re-evaluate the Colorado law under this more rigorous standard. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter, expressing concerns that the majority's decision could lead to "unprofessional and unsafe medical care administered by effectively unsupervised healthcare providers."

Why It Matters

This Supreme Court decision is significant because while it does not immediately strike down Colorado's ban, it requires a higher legal standard for its review, potentially making it more challenging for the state to uphold. Advocates for LGBTQ+ youth are concerned that this ruling could weaken protections against a practice widely considered harmful and ineffective, potentially affecting similar bans in nearly half of U.S. states. The ruling also raises broader questions about the extent to which states can regulate speech within the context of professional medical and mental health care, and whether such regulations are seen as censorship or as necessary to protect vulnerable populations.

Geographic Location

• Washington, D.C., District of Columbia, United States (Supreme Court issued ruling in Chiles v. Salazar)
• Colorado, United States (state where the challenged conversion therapy ban was enacted and where petitioner Kaley Chiles practices)