Supreme Court Rules 8-1 Against Conversion Therapy Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on Tuesday that Colorado’s ban on LGBTQ conversion therapy for minors is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. The decision, in Chiles v. Salazar, sided with a Christian counselor who argued the law censored her viewpoint while permitting counseling that affirms a patient's gender identity, sending the case back to lower courts with instructions to apply the strictest level of legal review.

"Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety... But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority. "However well-intentioned, any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an ‘egregious’ assault on both of those commitments."

The court’s conclusion hinged on what it described as an asymmetry in the Colorado law. The statute prohibits counseling that "attempts or purports to change" a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity but does not restrict therapy that helps a minor embrace a transgender identity. This distinction, Gorsuch wrote, means the law discriminates based on the viewpoint being expressed. The ruling was joined by liberal-leaning Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

The decision remands the case to lower courts to apply "strict scrutiny," a legal standard under which laws are rarely upheld. This has immediate implications for the 22 other states, including New York, California, and Illinois, that have similar bans on conversion therapy. While the ruling specifically addresses talk therapy, the court noted it does not prevent states from restricting "physical interventions" like electroconvulsive treatments.

The Dissent's Warning

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the lone dissenter, argued the majority’s decision "opens a dangerous can of worms" by limiting a state's ability to regulate medical and mental health treatments. She contended that states have broad latitude to regulate professional conduct and speech to protect patients from what major psychological organizations have deemed harmful and ineffective practices.

"The majority has failed to appreciate the crucial context in which Chiles’s constitutional claims have arisen," Jackson wrote. "Chiles is not speaking in the ether; she is providing therapy to minors as a licensed healthcare professional."

A Nuanced Concurrence

Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, while siding with the majority, wrote a separate concurring opinion to clarify their reasoning. Kagan argued the case was "straightforward" because Colorado’s law was not viewpoint-neutral. It suppressed one side of a debate while actively aiding the other.

"Because the State has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward," Kagan wrote. She suggested that a more neutrally worded law, one that perhaps regulated specific therapeutic practices regardless of the viewpoint they promoted, might have passed constitutional muster.

Broader Context and Future Cases

This ruling is the latest in a series of Supreme Court decisions impacting LGBTQ rights, often centered on First Amendment claims. In recent terms, the court has sided with a web designer refusing services for same-sex marriages and upheld bans on gender-affirming care for minors. According to a 2024 survey by The Trevor Project, 5% of LGBTQ youth have undergone conversion therapy. The court is still deliberating on other significant cases this term, including one concerning bans on transgender women in school sports.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.