Supreme Court rules against Colorado ban on 'conversion therapy' for LGBTQ+ kids

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: AP

Updated 10:27 AM EDT, March 31, 2026


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against a law banning “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ+ kids in Colorado, one of about two dozen states that ban the discredited practice. An 8-1 high court majority sided with a Christian counselor who argues the law banning talk therapy violates the First Amendment. The justices agreed that the law raises free speech concerns and sent it back to a lower court to decide if it meets a legal standard that few laws pass.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court, said the law “censors speech based on viewpoint.” The First Amendment, he wrote, “stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.”

In a solo dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that states should be free to regulate health care, even if that means incidental restrictions on speech. The decision, Jackson wrote, “opens a dangerous can of worms” that “threatens to impair states’ ability to regulate the provision of medical care in any respect.”

The decision is the latest in a line of recent cases in which the justices have backed claims of religious discrimination while taking a skeptical view of LGBTQ+ rights.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-conversion-therapy-colorado-92b34295f9ef497a4a1cbeb56c9b74c6

---

Link to RULING (PDF) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-539_fd9g.pdf

8-1 with Jackson as the lone dissent. This was apparently argued as a "Free Speech" case.


Article updated.

Original article/headline -

Supreme Court rules against Colorado ban on 'conversion therapy' for LGBTQ kids

Updated 10:08 AM EDT, March 31, 2026


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against a law banning "conversion therapy" for LGBTQ+ kids in Colorado, one of about two dozen states that ban the discredited practice. An 8-1 high court majority sided with a Christian counselor who argues the law banning talk therapy violates the First Amendment. The justices agreed that the law raises free speech concerns and sent it back to a lower court to decide if it meets a legal standard that few laws pass.

It's the latest in a line of recent cases in which the justices have backed claims of religious discrimination while taking a skeptical view of LGBTQ rights. Counselor Kaley Chiles, with support from President Donald Trump's Republican administration, said the law wrongly bars her from offering voluntary, faith-based therapy for kids.

Chiles contends her approach is different from "conversion therapy" practices from decades ago, like shock therapy. Her attorneys argued that the ban makes it hard for parents to find therapists willing to discuss gender identity with kids unless the counseling affirms transition.

Colorado disagreed, saying its law does allow wide-ranging conversations about gender identity and sexual orientation and exempts religious ministries. The state says the measure simply bars using therapy to try to "convert" LGBTQ people to heterosexuality or traditional gender expectations, a practice that has been scientifically discredited and linked to serious harm.

[Prairie Gates]

1. Obergefell is in danger

I think it has at most even odds of surviving through 2030.

[JT45242]

11. I doubt Obergefell makes it through next year's docket

It is on the Project 2025 list.

It is a chance to make another scapegoat -- one that Nazis -- historical and current will be happy to send to death camps.

This is a sad day for our country and the rule of law.

[Prairie Gates]

15. I don't know that there's a live case coming through the courts that would challenge Obergefell

Which is why I pushed the timeline out a bit.

The right has made tremendous headway over the last five years backlashing LGBTQ issues into oblivion, but I think marriage is still clinging to some support. But four years from now, if the backlash continues apace? It's going to get pulled back on a state's right basis, with the "moderate" excuse from the media and the Scott Bessents of the world that you can still get married on Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, etc,, the same way they did it with Roe.

[FBaggins]

29. Not any time soon

I see that you noticed that there are no pending cases that raise the issue and selected a longer prediction timeline to account for that. But note that the issue was on their desk just a few months ago and they unanimously rejected even considering the case.

[Prairie Gates]

30. There were actually two reasons for my timeframe in my post

1) No live cases (which you mentioned)
2) The political ground is not yet cleared for it. However, if the vicious right wing/ GOP/ conservative backlash against LGBTQ positions continues at its current rate, the ground will be cleared in the next few years.

There's plenty of polling on the second point. There was an Op-Ed on the erosion of LGBTQ positions in public polling in the NY Times last week, and another article covering the same ground in the Atlantic. It's bad. The right wing/GOP/conservative backlash has been relentless and successful. The corrupt Supreme Court justices still don't have the political cover to overturn Obergefell, but they may well have it soon.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

2. Conversion therapy is torture

Any doctor who performs this therapy needs to be prosecuted

[dsc]

3. I could accept this, though not like it, if this principle were being applied anything like equally

but in terms of abortion doctors this free speech argument was directly refuted by most of the members of this very same court.

[Jose Garcia]

4. Yikes! Kagan and Sotomayor concurring with the conservatives

[24601]

6. This is an excerpt from the Kagan & Sotomayor concurring opinion. Justice Kagan authored it & Justice Sotomayor joined.

"The Court today decides that the Colorado law challenged here, as applied to talk therapy, conflicts with core First
Amendment principles because it regulates speech based on viewpoint. See ante, at 23. I agree. I write only to note
that if Colorado had instead enacted a content-based but viewpoint-neutral law, it would raise a different and more
difficult question."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-539_fd9g.pdf

[SunSeeker]

9. Disappointing. Conversion therapy is harmful quackery.

Government regulates harmful speech all the time. This should have been one of those times.

[Shrek]

12. They actually cover that in the opinion

Colorado’s law does not implicate any recognized exception to the Court’s usual First Amendment rules. It does not require disclosure of “factual, noncontroversial information in . . . ‘commercial speech,’ ”id., at 768, and as applied to Ms. Chiles, it does not regulate conduct in a way that only “incidentally burden[s] speech,” id., at 769. All she does is speak, and speech is all Colorado seeks to regulate. Colorado’s argument that the law regulates speech only incidentally fails because the Court’s speech-incident-to-conduct doctrine asks whether the law restricts speech only because it is integrally related to unlawful conduct, or whether the law restricts expressive conduct only for reasons unrelated to its content. Colorado’s law does neither: Ms. Chiles’s speech does not bear a close causal connection to any separately unlawful conduct, and the State’s law trains directly on the content of her speech, permitting some viewpoints but not others.

(c) Colorado cannot establish that applying its law to Ms. Chiles falls within a long tradition of permissible content regulation.

[SunSeeker]

16. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is "only speech" as well, but it is regulated.

Because it is harmful. Like this. "Conversation therapy" is torture and can lead to suicides.

Sotomayor and Kagan really missed the point here in concurring with the bigots of the majority.

[Shrek]

23. Sure, but yelling in a crowded theatre isn't speech based on viewpoint

Justice Elena Kagan joined the Gorsuch opinion, but she also penned a four-page concurring opinion that was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She agreed with the majority that “the Colorado law challenged here, as applied to talk therapy, conflicts with core First Amendment principles because it regulates speech based on viewpoint.” Kagan suggested, however, that “if Colorado had instead enacted a content-based but viewpoint-neutral law, it would raise a different and more difficult question.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/supreme-court-sides-with-therapist-in-challenge-to-colorados-ban-on-conversion-therapy/

[Polybius]

24. Or they just voted for what they thought was right

[wolfie001]

5. The weird christo-fascist sleep-away camps

That's what I think is a big problem. 'But I'm a Cheerleader' was a comedy but the real world is not.

[dickthegrouch]

19. They charge a lot of money for those camps.

They signed contracts for buildings and supplies and (quack) medics.
The ban cost them money. That's all this is really about.
FUCK THEM! (SCROTUS and the KKKRistians).

[maxsolomon]

7. No protections from mental abuse by religious fanatics.

That about sums up America in 2026.

[sakabatou]

8. "We condone child abuse," says Supreme Court

[Martin68]

10. WTF? It is not a Free Speech question. It is a medical, sociological, and ethical question.

Last edited Tue Mar 31, 2026, 01:29 PM - Edit history (1)

It could only be considered free speech if there was no coercion involved, and only speech in which the subject can speak freely and leave at any time.

[Shrek]

14. Apparently that's how it works, according to the opinion

Kaley Chiles holds a master’s degree in clinical mental health and a state counseling license in Colorado. Ms. Chiles does not begin counseling with any predetermined goals; instead, she sits down with clients, discusses their goals, and then formulates methods of counseling that will most benefit them, seeking throughout to respect her clients’ fundamental right of self-determination. On matters of sexuality and gender, Ms. Chiles’s clients, including young people, often have different goals: Some are content with their sexual orientation and gender identity and want help with social issues or family relationships, while others hope to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of harmony with their bodies. With all those clients, Ms. Chiles seeks to help them reach their stated objectives.

[angrychair]

20. That is impossible

while others hope to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors

It is impossible to change who you are sexually attracted to and anyone implying you can is a quack and should be prevented from trying to do that because it's incredibly dangerous.

[Martin68]

22. If that is what the decision is based on, then it does seem reasonable to me. As long as advice is freely requested and

the client is free to leave at any time. that's a far cry from "conversation therapy" that is coercive and unwanted.

[Lonestarblue]

26. Many of the people undergoing conversion therapy are minors forced by their bigoted Christian parents.

I can see where a genuinely confused child could benefit from therapy, but I have my doubts that therapists who focus on their religious beliefs and biases have the best interests of the child in mind rather than a need to satisfy parents that their child has been "cured" of being gay.

[Klarkashton]

13. The court opened the door to any and all quack

Bullshit that the states want to restrict in good faith.

[angrychair]

17. Sweet, I'll set up shop tomorrow

Medical quackery is now legal. I'll just talk about how my book cures cancer and it's perfectly legal now.

Now legal just to claim anything you want and it's perfectly legal and fine.

[WestMichRad]

18. So it'll be okay for us to develop a conversion therapy program...

… to torture the stupidity out of MAGAs?

[Dr. T]

25. MAGAt conversion therapy. AWESOME!

Put them in a sensory deprivation room with MS NOW and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on a continuous loop.

[dickthegrouch]

21. Lots of other instances where the government is restricting speech.

Ask the real medics at CDC or DHSS or VA.
Ask the retired generals who are being pilloried for talking about illegal orders.
Ask the Judges who are being victimised for ruling against the government.
Ask the journalists who are so afraid of their access to the lies, that they won't ask about the lies.
Ask.
Ask.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

27. Deadline Legal Blog-Supreme Court sides with Christian counselor over Colorado on 'conversion therapy' for minors

Medical groups warned that efforts to change sexual orientation and gender identity are illegitimate, ineffective and can be especially harmful to minors.

Deadline: Legal Blog - Supreme Court sides with Christian counselor over Colorado on ‘conversion therapy’ for minors

Medical groups warned that efforts to change sexual orientation and gender identity are illegitimate, ineffective and can be especially harmful to minors.

— Lola Gayle (@lolagaylec.bsky.social) 2026-03-31T15:45:12.868Z

https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-conversion-therapy-colorado

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with a Christian counselor over Colorado in her challenge to the state’s ban on so-called conversion therapy for minors.

In an 8-1 ruling by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court said that the state’s law, as applied to talk therapy provided by the counselor, Kaley Chiles, conflicts with First Amendment principles because it regulates speech based on viewpoint. Gorsuch wrote that the amendment “stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.”

About half the states in the country have banned or restricted the practice that aims to change a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity.....

Focusing in on Chiles’ claim, Gorsuch called the question before the court a narrow one. “Ms. Chiles does not question that Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy has some constitutionally sound applications,” the Trump appointee wrote. He noted that she doesn’t take issue with the state’s effort to prohibit physical interventions, but rather, she only provides talk therapy.

The problem, she argued, is that because the state’s law strikes at the heart of First Amendment speech protections, the lower courts didn’t provide rigorous enough scrutiny against the state in her legal challenge. ....

Upholding the district court’s ruling against Chiles, a divided appellate panel said the law only “incidentally” involves speech because counseling necessarily involves speech, but that the state isn’t restricting her constitutional expression.

“In other words, Ms. Chiles’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech is implicated under the MCTL [Minor Conversion Therapy Law], but it is not abridged,” the panel majority said, over dissent from a judge who said the majority’s “wordplay” in distinguishing speech from conduct posed “a serious threat to free speech.”

The panel majority noted that Chiles remained free to share her views on conversion therapy, sexual orientation and gender identity; that she can criticize Colorado for restricting her administration of conversion therapy; that she can refer clients to other service providers, like religious ministers; and that she can provide conversion therapy to adult clients.

I feel a little better. Talk therapy is not the same as the torture methods used in many forms of conversion therapy. Other forms of conversion therapy are still illegal.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

28. Deadline Legal Blog-Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson steps out alone, again - this time on 'conversion therapy'

The Biden appointee made the rare move of dissenting from the bench, in the latest action separating her from her colleagues.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson steps out alone, again – this time on ‘conversion therapy’

💾

©

— Irish News 🇮🇪 (@news-flows-ir.bsky.social) 2026-03-31T16:56:54.000000Z

https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/justice-ketanji-brown-jackson-dissent-conversion-therapy

In her dissent, the Biden appointee wrote that the practice of seeking to “convert” a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity has been “widely discredited within the medical and scientific community” and found to cause “lasting psychological harm.”

Departing from Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion for eight members of the court, Jackson wrote, “The conclusion that a State can regulate the provision of medical care even if, in so doing, it incidentally restricts the speech of some providers, fully comports with the First Amendment’s animating principles.”

She continued: “Ultimately, because the majority plays with fire in this case, I fear that the people of this country will get burned.” Until now, she wrote, licensed medical professionals couldn’t do or say whatever they wanted. States could regulate them, which, she wrote, contributed to the high quality of American care.

“Today, the Court turns its back on that tradition,” Jackson wrote. “And, to be completely frank, no one knows what will happen now.” She accused the majority of reaching this “momentous decision” without “adequately grappling with the potential long-term and disastrous implications of this ruling.”

The justice closed her solo dissent by worrying about the majority having opened a “dangerous can of worms” that “threatens to impair States’ ability to regulate the provision of medical care in any respect,” pushes the Constitution “into uncharted territory in an utterly irrational fashion” and “risks grave harm to Americans’ health and wellbeing.”

I agree with Jackson's dissent. I believe that conversion therapy is close to torture. The fact that you can use "talk therapy" may open a dangerous can of worms. I strongly believe in the First Amendment but here there needs to be limits. Talk therapy is less objectionable compared to other methods of conversion therapy but it has risks.