Skip to main content
Quanta Report
PoliticsThe Supreme Court will hear a case challenging Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors, examining the balance between state regulation of health care and freedom of speech. The case revolves around a Christian counselor's lawsuit against the ban, which is supported by the Trump administration, while opponents argue it regulates a discredited practice linked to mental harm.

Supreme Court to Review Controversial Conversion Therapy Bans

The Supreme Court is set to deliberate on the legality of conversion therapy bans for minors, amid arguments over free speech rights and public health regulations.

Source: AP2 min read

In brief

The Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors, which is challenged by a Christian counselor who claims it infringes on her freedom of speech. The case raises significant issues about LGBTQ+ rights, the role of state regulations in healthcare, and the balance between protecting children and individual freedoms. As the court weighs differing state laws on this contentious topic, previous rulings indicate a complex legal landscape.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will weigh in on its latest LGBTQ+ rights case this Tuesday, deliberating on the constitutionality of conversion therapy bans enacted by almost half of U.S. states.

This pivotal case stems from a lawsuit filed by a Christian counselor in Colorado who is challenging the state’s law prohibiting therapy aimed at altering sexual orientation or gender identity in minors. Counsel Kaley Chiles argues that the law restricts her freedom of speech by preventing her from providing faith-based therapy to children.

The state of Colorado counters that this law regulates therapists, prohibiting a practice deemed scientifically discredited and potentially harmful.

These arguments arrive months after the Supreme Court's conservative majority determined that states can prohibit transition-related healthcare for transgender youth, a ruling viewed as a setback for LGBTQ rights. The justices are also slated to hear a case regarding transgender participation in sports this term.

State Stance on Therapy Regulation

Colorado has yet to enforce the 2019 law against practitioners, maintaining that it still permits extensive, faith-oriented dialogues between therapists and young clients regarding gender and sexuality.

“The law’s only restriction prevents therapists from attempting to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity, as such treatments are both unsafe and ineffective,” remarked Colorado state attorneys.

Officials argue therapy processes fall under health care; therefore, government regulation is necessary. Violating this law could result in fines and the suspension or loss of licenses.

Linda Robertson, a Christian mother, shared her personal distress regarding her son Ryan's experiences with failed conversion therapy, which she believes left him feeling shame and depression, culminating in his tragic death in 2009.

Chiles, defending her approach's uniqueness compared to older conversion practices, asserts a belief in assisting individuals to align with 'God’s design' encompassing their biological sex, arguing there is insufficient evidence of harm linked to her methods.

Her legal team claims it’s discriminatory for Colorado to support affirming therapy while banning counseling aimed at altering sexual identity or orientation, urging that access to such counseling should be available upon request.

The Trump administration previously expressed that the First Amendment implications of Colorado’s law merit a stricter judicial standard rarely met.

Other Legal Challenges to Similar Laws

Chiles is represented by the conservative group Alliance Defending Freedom, known for its history of activism in similar cases, including one that recently rolled back an anti-discrimination law in Colorado.

They are hinging their argument on precedent from a Supreme Court case where California could not mandate anti-abortion centers to post information about the procedure. They contend Chiles should similarly not be subjected to such regulatory actions.

However, the Supreme Court has permitted regulations that impose only incidental speech burdens, suggesting a legal standoff centered on states' rights to regulate discredited healthcare even when it concerns minors.

The court’s decision to engage with this case follows the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ upholding of the law, whilst contrasting rulings in Florida’s 11th Circuit saw similar bans overturned.

In the broader legal landscape, recent state court actions show a mix of enforcement for bans and discussions to lighten restrictions, indicating continued contention around conversion therapy throughout the country.

Topics

More on this story