What's happened
On October 7, 2025, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, challenging Colorado's 2019 ban on conversion therapy for minors. Christian counselor Kaley Chiles claims the law violates her First Amendment free speech rights by prohibiting talk therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation or gender identity. The conservative-majority court questioned the law's constitutionality, with a ruling expected by June 2026. The case has broad implications for LGBTQ+ rights and medical regulation nationwide.
What's behind the headline?
Legal and Cultural Stakes
The Supreme Court's consideration of Chiles v. Salazar represents a pivotal moment in the intersection of free speech, medical regulation, and LGBTQ rights. The conservative majority's skepticism toward Colorado's ban signals a potential expansion of First Amendment protections to encompass professional speech, specifically verbal therapy.
Implications for Professional Regulation
If the Court rules that talk therapy is fully protected speech rather than regulated conduct, it could undermine existing frameworks that govern professional healthcare, legal advice, and financial counseling. This would challenge states' abilities to regulate treatments deemed harmful or ineffective, potentially destabilizing public health safeguards.
The Role of Viewpoint Discrimination
Conservative justices highlighted concerns about viewpoint discrimination, noting that Colorado's law permits affirming therapy but bans efforts to help patients change their sexual orientation or gender identity. This raises questions about whether the state is impermissibly censoring certain perspectives.
Broader Social and Political Context
The case unfolds amid a broader conservative legal agenda expanding religious freedom claims and restricting LGBTQ rights, including recent rulings upholding bans on gender-affirming care for minors. The involvement of groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom and support from former President Trump’s administration underscore the political dimensions.
Forecast
The Court's ruling, expected by June 2026, will likely reshape the legal landscape for LGBTQ youth and professional speech regulation. A decision favoring Chiles could roll back protections against conversion therapy and complicate states' regulatory authority. Conversely, upholding the ban would reinforce states' roles in protecting vulnerable populations from harmful practices.
Reader Impact
This case affects families, healthcare providers, and LGBTQ youth nationwide, influencing access to care and the boundaries of free speech in professional settings. The outcome will inform how states balance individual rights with public health and anti-discrimination goals.
What the papers say
Noah Feldman writing for Bloomberg highlights the unprecedented legal stakes, noting that a ruling in favor of Chiles "would undermine numerous regulations that govern professional conduct performed verbally, from law to the provision of financial services and transactions." The Independent's Harry Cockburn emphasizes the human cost, quoting Jess Braverman of Gender Justice: "This ruling is devastating for transgender youth and their families in North Dakota," underscoring the harm caused by bans on gender-affirming care.
The New York Post provides a detailed narrative of Kaley Chiles' position, portraying her as a Christian therapist whose practice involves voluntary conversations aimed at helping patients reconcile with their biological sex. It quotes the Alliance Defending Freedom's argument that Colorado's law "amounts to a viewpoint ban," and highlights Justice Sonia Sotomayor's probing questions about the limits of state regulation on speech.
Al Jazeera offers a balanced account of the Supreme Court hearing, noting conservative justices' concerns about viewpoint discrimination and quoting Chief Justice John Roberts: "just because they’re engaged in conduct doesn’t mean that their words aren’t protected." It also contextualizes the case within the broader medical consensus against conversion therapy, citing the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry's warnings about its harms.
The Independent's coverage also includes personal testimony from Linda Robertson, whose son died after undergoing conversion therapy, illustrating the profound emotional and psychological consequences. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser warns that striking down the law could "undermine broader efforts to regulate medical treatments deemed unsafe or ineffective by experts."
Together, these sources provide a multifaceted view: the legal complexities, personal tragedies, political motivations, and medical consensus that frame this landmark case.
How we got here
Conversion therapy, widely discredited and condemned by medical groups, attempts to change sexual orientation or gender identity, often harming LGBTQ youth. Colorado's 2019 law bans licensed therapists from performing such treatments on minors but exempts religious groups. Kaley Chiles, a Christian counselor, sued claiming the ban infringes on free speech. The Supreme Court's conservative majority has recently upheld state bans on gender-affirming care, heightening the case's significance.
Go deeper
- What are the main arguments for and against Colorado's conversion therapy ban?
- How could the Supreme Court's ruling affect LGBTQ+ rights nationwide?
- What is the difference between regulating speech and regulating professional conduct in this case?
Common question
-
Can the Supreme Court change LGBTQ rights with the therapy ban case?
The US Supreme Court is currently debating Colorado's 2019 law banning conversion therapy for minors. This case could have significant implications for LGBTQ+ rights and religious freedom across the country. Many are wondering whether the Court's decision might roll back protections or uphold the ban. Below, we explore the key questions surrounding this high-stakes legal battle and what it could mean for the future of LGBTQ rights in America.
-
What is the Supreme Court case on Colorado's conversion therapy ban?
The US Supreme Court is currently reviewing a high-stakes case involving Colorado's 2019 law banning conversion therapy for minors. This case could have far-reaching implications for LGBTQ+ rights across the country. Many are wondering what the case is about, how it might affect future laws, and what arguments are being made on both sides. Below, we explore the key questions surrounding this landmark legal battle.
More on these topics
-
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States of America. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all federal and state court cases that involve a point of federal law, and original jurisdict
-
Colorado is a state in the western United States encompassing most of the southern Rocky Mountains as well as the northeastern portion of the Colorado Plateau and the western edge of the Great Plains.