Supreme Court Axes Colorado's 'Conversion Therapy' Ban for Talk Therapy

Kaley Chiles, a licensed mental health counselor in Colorado, challenged the state's 2019 law prohibiting licensed counselors from engaging in 'conversion therapy' with minors. Chiles argued that as applied to her talk therapy practice—which involves no physical interventions or medications—the law violated her First Amendment rights by restricting what she could say to consenting clients who sought to change unwanted sexual attractions or behaviors related to their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Writing for an 8-1 majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch held that Colorado's law 'regulates the content of her speech and goes further to prescribe what views she may and may not express, discriminating on the basis of viewpoint.' The law permits counselors to express acceptance and support for clients exploring their identity or undergoing gender transition, but forbids them from saying anything that attempts to change a client's sexual orientation or gender identity. Gorsuch emphasized that 'viewpoint discrimination' represents 'an egregious form' of content regulation that governments must 'nearly always abstain' from imposing.

Both the district court and Tenth Circuit had found that Chiles had standing to pursue her as-applied challenge but denied her request for a preliminary injunction. The lower courts reasoned that Colorado's law primarily regulated professional conduct rather than speech, warranting only rational-basis review under the First Amendment. Judge Timothy Hartz dissented at the Tenth Circuit, arguing the majority's approach amounted to 'little more than a labeling game.'

The decision resolves a circuit split over how the First Amendment applies to conversion therapy bans when applied to talk therapy. Justice Elena Kagan filed a concurring opinion noting that a content-based but viewpoint-neutral law would present 'a different and more difficult question.' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissenter, arguing that the majority failed to appreciate that medical professionals' speech receives less First Amendment protection when regulated as part of medical practice.