Supreme Court Appears Skeptical of Colorado's Conversion Therapy Ban for Minors

Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Colorado Conversion Therapy Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 7, 2025, heard oral arguments in the case of Chiles v. Salazar, a significant challenge to Colorado's 2019 Minor Conversion Therapy Law. During the proceedings, the Court's conservative majority appeared skeptical of the state law, raising questions about its potential infringement on free speech rights. This case could have far-reaching implications for similar bans enacted in over 20 other U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

The Colorado Law and Its Constitutional Challenge

Colorado's Minor Conversion Therapy Law prohibits licensed mental health professionals from engaging in any practice or treatment, including talk therapy, that attempts to change a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity. This includes efforts to 'change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.' Violators of the law face fines of up to $5,000 and risk suspension or loss of their professional license.

The challenge was brought by Kaley Chiles, a licensed therapist based in Colorado Springs. Represented by the conservative legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), Chiles argues that the state's ban violates her First Amendment free speech rights. She contends that the law unconstitutionally censors conversations between counselors and clients based on viewpoint, preventing her from providing therapy to young people who seek to align their sexual orientation and gender identity with a Christian worldview.

Arguments Before the High Court

During the 90 minutes of oral argument, justices posed tough questions to both sides. Lawyers for Chiles, including James Campbell, argued that the law imposes a viewpoint-based restriction on speech and should be subject to 'strict scrutiny,' a high legal standard that would likely lead to the law being overturned. Campbell asserted that the state is 'actively investigating' Chiles, creating a 'credible threat of enforcement.'

Conversely, Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson defended the law, arguing that it regulates professional conduct rather than speech. Stevenson emphasized that conversion therapy is widely considered unsafe and ineffective by major medical associations, including the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association. She stated that the state has a right to regulate medical care to protect vulnerable minors from harmful treatments. The Justice Department also weighed in on the side of Chiles, arguing that the case has important First Amendment implications.

Broader Implications and Next Steps

Lower courts had previously ruled in favor of Colorado, with the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the law, finding it regulated professional conduct. However, the Supreme Court's engagement with the free speech arguments suggests a potential reevaluation. A ruling against Colorado could impact similar laws in nearly 30 states that have enacted bans or restrictions on conversion therapy for minors.

The Court's decision in Chiles v. Salazar is anticipated by the end of June 2026. The outcome will be closely watched for its impact on LGBTQ+ youth rights, the scope of free speech protections for professionals, and states' authority to regulate medical practices.