The U.S. Supreme Court, in a landmark 8–1 decision on Tuesday, March 31, 2026, struck down Colorado’s ban on so-called “conversion therapy” and ruled in favor of a Christian mental health counselor. The majority found the 2019 law violated the First Amendment because, in its view, it unconstitutionally discriminated based on viewpoint: talk therapy that affirms and supports exploration of gender identity or a transition was allowed, while talk therapy aimed at reducing unwanted same-sex attraction, changing sexual behavior, or aligning gender identity with biological sex was prohibited.
Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion. He argued that speech does not lose constitutional protection simply because the state labels it “treatment” or a “therapeutic method,” citing the 1963 case NAACP v. Button. The ruling overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and sent the case back to lower courts for further proceedings under more rigorous First Amendment scrutiny.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissenter. In her dissent, she warned that the decision could weaken states’ ability to regulate medical care and, in the worst case, could allow licensed health professionals who use speech in providing care to claim a new constitutional right to deliver what she considered substandard treatment.
At the center of the case was Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs who, according to the case record, is a practicing Christian and provides only talk therapy, without medication, physical interventions, or coercive techniques. She said she does not enter sessions with predetermined outcomes but instead follows clients’ goals, including those of minors; the case described some clients seeking a faith-integrated approach, others seeking affirmation of their identity, and still others seeking help reducing unwanted same-sex attraction, changing behaviors, or achieving greater alignment with their bodies.
Colorado enacted its law in 2019, prohibiting licensed counselors from engaging in “conversion therapy” with minors and defining it broadly as practices intended to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to alter behavior, gender expression, or reduce same-sex attraction. At the same time, the statute expressly allowed “acceptance, support, and understanding” during identity exploration and assistance for individuals undergoing gender transition.
Chiles filed suit in federal court in 2022 and sought a preliminary injunction limited to her talk-therapy practice. The district court and the Tenth Circuit recognized her standing but denied relief, reasoning that the law regulated professional conduct and only incidentally burdened speech, so rational-basis review applied; Judge Harris Hartz dissented at the Tenth Circuit. The Supreme Court granted review to resolve a circuit split, heard arguments on October 7, 2025, and issued its 8–1 decision on March 31, 2026.
Source: ZeroHedge