US Supreme Court Reviews Colorado’s Ban on Gay ‘Conversion Therapy

On October 7, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court commenced oral arguments in a significant constitutional case involving a Colorado law prohibiting conversion therapy of minors, enacted in 2019. The case is a clash between the rights of freedom of speech and religious liberties, and civil protection of vulnerable young people, and control over health. The result may impact other comparable bans in close to twenty-five states. 

What is the Colorado law and the dispute?

• The Minor Conversion Therapy Law (2019) in Colorado also forbids licensed mental health professionals from providing therapy to minors in an effort to alter the sexual orientation or gender identity of that minor. 
• The law does not prohibit interventions that facilitate gender transition and exploration of identity, but prohibits interventions aimed at eradicating same sex attraction or the alteration of gender expression. 
• Therapist violations may attract fines to the tune of $5,000 per violation. 
• The plaintiff is a licensed Colorado counsellor named Kaley Chiles, who states that the ban infringes upon her First Amendment rights (free speech and religious expression). She claims it limits her to counsel clients who want to be in line with their religious beliefs or physical sex. 
• She has not been enforced in the law yet–her case is rather a pre-enforcement case. 

What do the state and its supporters argue?

1. The ban has the support of Colorado and medical and psychological bodies. They claim conversion therapy is not valid, dangerous, and has a false basis. 
2. Colorado argues that the law does not cover speech, but the conduct of a professional and it is an allowable health and safety rule to guard against the exploitation of minors. 
3. Advocates of the ban cite the example of various organizations, such as the American Psychological Association and, American Medical Association, among others, that have long been against conversion therapy. 
4. Chiles is represented in this case by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative Christian legal organisation which is pressuring the Court to lift the ban. 
5. Opponents of ADF argue that the group falsified or misrepresented the research on the harms of conversion therapy in their filings- some original researchers have complained about the use of their work by the group. 

The history of the Supreme Court

• The initial lawsuit was filed by Chiles in 2022 in a federal district court in Colorado. The court dismissed her because it found that the ban by Colorado was a legitimate regulation of therapy practices. 
• The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. It pronounced the law as legitimate and its adherence to the protection of minors against evil practices. 
• In 2025, Chiles v. gave the Supreme Court the review. Salazar, docket number 24-539. 
• The crucial question of the constitution: Is this law censoring some of the conversations that therapists might desire to conduct, and therefore, is it contravening free speech? Or is it a lawful rule of professional behaviour? 

What is at stake?

1. In case the Supreme Court decides against Colorado, most state bans will be exposed to danger, as analogous laws are provided in over 20 states and D.C. 
2. A decision in support of Chiles would bolster the claims that therapists should be free to counsel in accordance with their religious beliefs or worldview, even in instances where they practice or say despicable things.
3. A decision to support the ban would affirm the right of states to control potentially damaging health practices- even though the regulations may limit some speech in the course of professional therapy.

ABC News reported in the recent past

• According to ABC News, half of the U.S. states prohibit conversion therapy on minors. 
• The law in Colorado does not allow therapists to make any attempts to alter behaviours and gender expressions, as well as to diminish the same-sex attraction of individuals under the age of 18. 
• Such law is not applicable in religious ministries and faith-based counselling, nor in a licensed therapy arrangement. 
• Chiles, according to an interview with her, claimed that the law does not allow her to have open conversations with clients regarding their objectives, particularly those that are against the provisions of the law.
• She claimed that the law is a wide, blanket wording which causes her to censor herself.
• Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser characterized the legislation as stopping the provision of substandard care and the guarding of minors, rather than the individuals with religious tendencies. 

Timeline and expectations

• Arguing in the Supreme Court is scheduled to commence on October 7, 2025. 
• It is anticipated that it will be decided by June 2026.
• The case is timed with the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, dealing with several high-profile cases of culture war (LGBT rights, guns, race) in this term. 

Key terms to remember

Term	Meaning
Conversion therapy	Therapy to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity
Pre-enforcement challenge	A legal action before any penalty is imposed
Professional conduct	Standards governing how licensed professionals act
Free speech / First Amendment	Constitutional protection of expression and belief

Final thoughts

The Chiles v. decision of the Supreme Court. Salazar could redefine the extent to which states can control professional mental health practice in conflict with the First Amendment of free speech and religious freedom. The result will have profound consequences on the LGBTQ+ youth, religious counsellors, and the legal balance between speech and healthcare control that is drawn in the U.S.