Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Colorado’s Conversion Therapy Ban
In a move that could have far-reaching implications for LGBTQ+ rights across the United States, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors. The case, brought by a Christian therapist who argues that the ban violates her free speech and religious rights, will test the legal limits of states’ ability to protect LGBTQ+ youth from harmful and discredited practices.
Why This Matters to the LGBTQ+ Community
Conversion therapy, a pseudoscientific practice that attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, has been widely condemned by medical and psychological organizations, including the American Psychological Association and the World Health Organization. Studies have shown that LGBTQ+ individuals who undergo conversion therapy are at a higher risk of depression, anxiety, and suicide.
Colorado’s law, similar to bans in more than 20 states, prohibits licensed therapists from engaging in conversion therapy with minors, recognizing the practice as harmful and ineffective. For LGBTQ+ advocates, the Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case raises concerns about a potential rollback of protections that have taken decades to establish.
The Challenge: A Clash Between Religious Beliefs and LGBTQ+ Protections
Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor and practicing Christian in Colorado Springs, Colorado, is at the center of this case. She claims that the ban interferes with her ability to treat individuals with “same-sex attractions or gender identity confusion” who “prioritize their faith above their feelings.” Chiles and her legal team argue that the law restricts conversations between therapists and clients, infringing upon free speech and religious expression.
However, LGBTQ+ advocates counter that conversion therapy is not a matter of faith or free speech—it is a harmful practice that has been widely debunked. “Prioritizing faith above feelings” should not mean exposing minors to psychological harm in an attempt to change an immutable part of who they are.
A Dangerous Legal Precedent?
At the heart of this case is the question of whether laws banning conversion therapy violate First Amendment rights. Opponents of the ban claim that restricting therapists from offering “counseling” aligned with their religious beliefs infringes upon their free speech. However, LGBTQ+ advocates argue that this is not a free speech issue—it is a matter of public health and child protection.
If the Supreme Court rules against Colorado’s law, it could set a dangerous precedent, allowing so-called “therapists” to push harmful practices under the guise of religious freedom. Such a decision could also open the door for legal challenges to similar bans nationwide, putting thousands of LGBTQ+ youth at risk.
The Bigger Picture: LGBTQ+ Rights Under Threat
This case arrives at a time when LGBTQ+ rights are under attack across the U.S., with increasing efforts to restrict gender-affirming care, limit discussions of LGBTQ+ identities in schools, and roll back anti-discrimination protections. A ruling against Colorado’s law could embolden anti-LGBTQ+ activists and lawmakers to challenge other hard-won protections.
The Supreme Court’s decision will have profound consequences—not just for LGBTQ+ youth in Colorado but for the broader fight for equality and dignity across the nation. The LGBTQ+ community, along with allies, must remain vigilant, advocate for science-based policies, and ensure that harmful practices like conversion therapy are not legitimized under the guise of free speech.
As this case unfolds, it serves as a sobering reminder that the fight for LGBTQ+ rights is far from over.
