Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take up a challenge to state and local laws that ban so-called “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ children.
The dispute before the court arose out of a Colorado law that prohibits licensed mental health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy on children who may be questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity. More than 20 states and the District of Columbia have similar laws on the books. The case will be heard in the Supreme Court’s next term, which begins in October. A decision is expected by the end of June 2026.
Colorado enacted the Minor Conversion Therapy Law in 2019 following what the state said was a growing mental health crisis among young people in the state and “mounting evidence” that conversion therapy is tied to increased depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation.
The law prohibits “any practice or treatment [upon minors] … that attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”
The state joined more than a dozen others in disciplining mental health professionals who practice conversion therapy on minors. Those who are found to engage in this practice face a range of punishments, from fines to a letter of admonition to having their license revoked.
The challenge to Colorado’s law was brought by Kaley Chiles, a professional counselor who is licensed by the state and uses talk therapy in her practice. A practicing Christian, Chiles works with adults and young people, and many of her clients are also Christian.
According to court papers, some of Chiles’ clients seek Christian-based counseling “to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of harmony with [their] physical body.”
Chiles’ sued the state of Colorado in September 2022 and sought to block enforcement of the state’s restriction on conversion therapy. She argued that the measure violates her free speech rights under the First Amendment and censors her conversations with clients based on viewpoint.
A federal district court declined to block the law, finding that it regulates professional conduct that incidentally involves speech. The court also found that conversion therapy is “ineffective and harms minors.”
Chiles’ appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which upheld the lower court’s decision. The 10th Circuit said that the restriction on conversion therapy implicates speech solely as to the practice of mental health treatment, which can be licensed by the state. The appeals court also concluded that Colorado’s law advances its interests in protecting minors and the integrity of the mental health profession.
In a filing with the Supreme Court, lawyers for Chiles argued that she does not seek to “cure” her clients of same-sex attractions or change their sexual orientation. Instead, they said she aims to help her clients “with their stated desires and objectives in counseling, which sometimes includes clients seeking to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of harmony with one’s physical body.”
“Colorado disagrees with Chiles’s beliefs on gender and sexuality. So much so that the State puts itself in Chiles’s counseling room, forbidding her from discussing the values she and her clients share,” her lawyers wrote in a Supreme Court filing. She is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group.
But Colorado officials said that the First Amendment allows states to regulate professional conduct to protect patients from “substandard treatment,”even when that rule “incidentally” burdens speech. They argued that efforts to change a young person’s sexual orientation or gender identity are “unsafe and ineffective.”
“A professional’s treatment of her patients and clients is fundamentally different, for First Amendment purposes, from laypersons’ interactions with each other,” Colorado officials wrote in a filing. “Unlike laypersons, those who choose to practice as health professionals are required, among various other responsibilities, to provide treatment to their patients consistent with their field’s standard of care.”
The state argued that Chiles’ claim undercut the ability of states to protect patients and clients from “harmful professional conduct.”
The Supreme Court has been asked before to jump into the debate over conversion therapy, but had previously declined to intervene. In 2023, the court turned away a First Amendment challenge to a Washington state law that prohibits licensed therapists from performing conversion therapy on patients under the age of 18.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh said then that they would have taken up the appeal from a licensed licensed marriage and family counselor in the state.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-colorado-conversion-therapy/
