Supreme Court May Strike Down Colorado’s Conversion Therapy Ban
The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared ready on Tuesday to rule against Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors. Several justices expressed sympathy for a Christian counselor challenging the law, arguing that it violates her First Amendment rights. The decision could have sweeping consequences, as nearly half of U.S. states currently prohibit the controversial practice.
Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor in Colorado, brought the lawsuit claiming her “faith-based talk therapy” is voluntary and focused solely on conversation, not medical treatment. She contends that her sessions—aimed at helping clients “find peace” with their identity—should be protected speech under the Constitution.
Justices Question State’s Authority
Chief Justice John Roberts and other conservative justices questioned whether states can regulate speech in therapy as they would medical conduct. Roberts noted previous rulings where the Court refused to treat professional speech differently under the First Amendment. “Just because it’s conduct doesn’t mean the words aren’t protected,” Roberts said.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, part of the Court’s liberal bloc, drew parallels between this case and an earlier one involving restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors in Tennessee. She questioned why the same logic wouldn’t apply to Colorado’s law. However, attorneys for Chiles argued that this case centers on speech rights, while the Tennessee case involved medical regulation.
The discussion underscored a key issue: whether talk therapy should be considered a protected form of speech or a medical act subject to regulation. Most conservative justices seemed to lean toward the former interpretation, suggesting that Colorado’s ban could be overturned or weakened significantly.
Debate Over “Medical Consensus”
Colorado defended its law by citing evidence that conversion therapy is harmful, often leading to higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts among minors. But conservative justices questioned how much weight should be given to medical consensus. Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that professional opinions have historically been influenced by ideology, implying that current views could also change over time.
Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson maintained that the state’s position was based on extensive research and public safety concerns. She argued that the harm “comes from telling someone there’s something innate about yourself that you can change.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, often seen as a swing vote, remained silent during the proceedings. The session lasted just 90 minutes and lacked the usual intensity of socially divisive cases. A ruling is expected by late June, potentially reshaping how far states can go in regulating counseling practices involving sexuality and gender identity.
Leave a Reply