The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could determine whether Colorado’s law banning so-called conversion therapy for minors is constitutional. Multiple conservative justices suggested during oral argument that they believe it may infringe on free speech rights.
Colorado is among more than 20 states to outlaw the practice—widely discredited by medical experts—aimed at changing a young person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
Over 90 minutes of debate, the justices discussed whether the therapy causes harm, whether it can achieve its aims, and whether banning it infringes on the First Amendment rights of therapists who claim religious or therapeutic motivations.
Key Players & Arguments
Plaintiff / Challenger
The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a religiously conservative legal group, represents Kaley Chiles, a licensed Colorado counsellor and Christian. Chiles argues that the ban violates her First Amendment right to speak about faith with clients. ADF asserts that Chiles’s therapy helps clients who wish to reduce same‑sex attraction or resolve gender dysphoria by “realigning” identity and body.
Colorado’s defense counters that Chiles has not been disciplined under the law, and the challenge is largely hypothetical. The state maintains that a substantial “mountain of evidence” establishes conversion therapy’s ineffectiveness and harm.
Scope of the Law
Colorado’s statute prohibits any practice or treatment aiming to change a minor’s gender expression or reduce same-sex attraction. A religious exemption is included, allowing those “engaged in the practice of religious ministry” to continue.
Testimony & Questioning
When Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked about evidence of harm, Colorado’s solicitor general cited data showing that subjects of conversion therapy experience twice the rate of self-harm, higher levels of harmful ideation, and adverse long-term mental health outcomes.
She argued that the real harm comes from telling someone they can change something fundamental about themselves, causing distress when attempts inevitably fail.
She also told the Court: “This court has recognised that state power is at its apex when it regulates to ensure safety in the healthcare professions.” She said Colorado’s law is precisely in that domain: banning a treatment that “does not work and carries great risk of harm.”
Skeptical Justices
Justice Clarence Thomas expressed concern that the law might act as a prior restraint on speech, violating the First Amendment. He questioned whether prohibiting certain therapeutic conversations is justified under the state’s regulatory authority.
Justice Samuel Alito, meanwhile, probed the limits of the law. He asked whether telling a patient “You can become straight” would be forbidden, and cited historical abuses, such as Buck v. Bell (which upheld forced sterilisation), to argue that medical standards can shift with ideology. Alito seemed to suggest that what is considered best practice now is not immutable.
Background & Context
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder, undermining the foundational rationale for conversion therapy. Since then, the practice has been condemned by major medical and psychological associations.
California was the first U.S. state to ban conversion therapy for minors. From 2015 to 2024, 24 more states and numerous municipalities followed, including in traditionally Republican jurisdictions. Some bans were enacted with bipartisan or Republican support.
