WASHINGTON — In a sharp rebuke to state regulatory authority, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that laws banning conversion therapy for minors may violate the free speech rights of licensed counselors. The 8-1 decision places the First Amendment above state public health mandates in this specific context, potentially destabilizing similar prohibitions in California and 23 other states that have moved to protect LGBTQ+ youth from discredited therapeutic practices.
The case centered on Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor in Colorado Springs who sued after Colorado passed measures prohibiting treatments aimed at changing a teenager’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Chiles argued the law prevented her from helping teens work through feelings about their attractions consistent with her Christian faith. She maintained she does not seek to “cure” clients but guides them based on their own goals, including efforts to “reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions.”
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for the majority, framed the issue as a matter of viewpoint discrimination. “Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety,” Gorsuch wrote. “But the 1st Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.” The court found that because the law restricted speech based on its content—specifically conversations aimed at changing sexual orientation—it amounted to unconstitutional censorship.
The ruling exposes a deep fissure in how the court balances medical regulation against expressive rights. While the majority treated the counseling sessions as protected speech, the state argued it was regulating professional conduct. Colorado officials emphasized that the law safeguards public health by prohibiting a practice shown to be harmful, noting that violators could face fines up to $5,000, though none had been issued prior to the challenge.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stood alone in dissent, arguing that the majority had conflated professional conduct with expressive speech. In a 35-page opinion, she wrote that the First Amendment cares about suppressing “speech as speech,” not laws that restrict speech incidentally through traditional licensing schemes. “States have traditionally regulated the provision of medical care through licensing schemes and malpractice regimes without constitutional incident,” Jackson noted.
The immediate fallout extends beyond Colorado. Advocacy groups warn the logic could undercut enforcement mechanisms in states that pioneered these bans, including California, where then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed the first such law in 2012. Equality California condemned the ruling, stating it weakens licensing boards’ ability to intervene when clinicians employ coercive techniques. The group is now urging support for a pending bill in Sacramento to extend the statute of limitations for survivors pursuing civil claims.
Reaction from civil rights organizations was swift and severe. The Trevor Project called the decision a “tragic step backward” that puts young lives at risk. “These efforts, no matter what proponents call them, no matter what any court says, are still proven to cause lasting psychological harm,” said Chief Executive Jaymes Black. Conversely, the First Liberty Institute hailed it as a victory for religious liberty, with President Kelly Shackelford arguing that Americans should not have professional speech censored simply because the government disfavors the viewpoint.
This marks the third significant defeat for LGBTQ+ rights advocates in the last year, following rulings on gender-affirming care and parental notification policies in schools. The Alliance Defending Freedom, which appealed Chiles’ case, has now secured three victories in free speech challenges against Colorado laws, following previous wins involving custom wedding cakes and website design services.
What does this mean for counselors in other states?
Legal experts suggest the ruling invites immediate challenges in the 23 other states with similar bans. While the decision specifically addressed Colorado’s statute, the reasoning regarding viewpoint discrimination could provide a blueprint for licensed providers elsewhere to seek exemptions. However, states may attempt to rewrite laws to focus more strictly on conduct rather than speech to withstand future scrutiny.
How does the Court reconcile this with the Tennessee ruling?
The distinction appears to rest on the classification of the treatment. In the Tennessee case, the Court deferred to state lawmakers prohibiting medical procedures like puberty blockers. In Colorado, the majority viewed talk therapy as expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. Critics argue this creates an inconsistent standard where the state’s authority to protect minors fluctuates based on the type of intervention.
Will minors be able to seek this therapy voluntarily?
The ruling does not explicitly grant minors the right to seek conversion therapy independently, but it removes the barrier for licensed counselors to offer it if requested. Chiles argued her clients seek counsel because their faith establishes the foundation for understanding their identity. The decision effectively allows those consensual conversations to continue without the threat of licensing penalties, provided the counselor frames the interaction as speech rather than medical treatment.
As states weigh their next moves, the tension remains between protecting vulnerable youth from harmful practices and preserving the expressive rights of professionals. Where should the line be drawn when a parent’s religious conviction conflicts with a state’s medical consensus?
