SCOTUS Will Hear Case Challenging Colorado's Conversion Therapy Ban

The far-right-packed Supreme Court will hear a case that challenges Colorado’s ban on the practice of conversion therapy. Conversion therapy is defined as the practice of attempting to change one’s sexual orientation or gender identity and has been found to cause serious psychological harm to those who are subjected to it.

Bans of the harmful practice began cropping up across the country in 2013 after a U.S. court of appeals ruled that therapy is a form of professional conduct and, therefore, not protected as free speech. Colorado joined 18 other states, four in that year alone, in banning the practice of conversion therapy.

Today, 30 U.S. states have conversation therapy bans in place, but those could be challenged, depending on the ruling from the Supreme Court, expected in 2026. The challenge is being brought by the conservative law firm Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) on behalf of Kaley Chiles. The suit argues that Chiles, who practices therapy in Colorado Springs, is limited in what she can say to clients who want to “affirm their biological gender and sexual orientation.”

ADF has been identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and has supported the recriminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ adults in the U.S. and abroad, defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad, stated that LGBTQ people are more likely to engage in pedophilia, and claimed that a “homosexual agenda” will destroy Christianity and society.

Colorado Springs Councilor, Kaley Chiles

In interviews and podcasts, Chiles claims she is fighting a “censorship” law that infringes on her free speech. This line of argument has quickly become a conservative dog whistle for any law or policy that stops them from publically spreading hate speech or discriminating against queer people. Similar suits filed by the ADF utilizing this tactic have been successful in Colorado, such as the Christian graphic artist who refused to create marriage websites for same-sex couples.

Organizations such as the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry have condemned the practice of conversion therapy on the basis of negative mental health effects, such as depression and suicide, that often come from attempting to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The United Nations Human Rights Council classifies the practice as tantamount to torture.

The Supreme Court rejected to hear a similar case in 2023, also filed by the ADF, against Washington State’s less strict ban on conversion therapy on persons under the age of 18. The law also contains a carve-out for conversion therapy practices “under the auspices of a religious denomination, church, or religious organization.”

Legal Journalist Mark Joseph Stern suggested that while the 2023 decision was technically a win for LGBTQ+ rights in the movement, it could spell danger for the ban in the future, like what we’re seeing now.

“Why didn’t Roberts, Gorsuch, or Barrett cast the fourth vote to take up the conversion therapy case? Maybe to avoid another controversial dispute, or maybe because Washington State identified a standing problem that makes this case an imperfect vehicle.” Stern wrote on X in 2023.

Does this mean Chiles’ case is a better vehicle for the court’s anti-gay agenda? States with bans on conversion therapy have often argued that free speech is not a valid defense against malpractice. Lawyers, doctors, and even therapists cannot argue that telling clients to commit crimes or engage in abusive practices falls under their right to free speech.

Whether the SCOTUS will keep the ban in place or strike it down as an infringement of free speech will likely come down to language in the 2018 case, NIFLA v. Becerra. NIFLA contains arguments that can be utilized by both sides, such as “speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by ‘professionals,’” which will certainly come in handy for the ADF. However, the NIFLA ruling also says, “[s]tates may regulate professional conduct, even though that conduct incidentally involves speech,” and it added that regulations of professional malpractice “fall within the traditional purview of state regulation of professional conduct.”

How will the court rule in hearing this case, and more importantly, how will Democrats protect LGBTQ minors in their states should the ban be lifted?

Like journalism like this? Consider becoming a sustaining supporter (and get our printed copy monthly at home.)

Democracy needs journalism more than ever. We’ve been telling the truth for 24 years. Your support helps us keep telling it for at least the next four years.