Supreme Court Strikes Down Conversion Therapy Ban In Colorado

The Supreme Court just sided with a Christian therapist in Colorado who says her First Amendment rights were violated by a Colorado law prohibiting the controversial practice of conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ youth.

The Court’s 8-1 decision in Kaley Chiles v. Patty Salazar, executive director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, et al., will likely have sweeping implications nationwide; More than 20 states have laws restricting conversion therapy.

Members of the nation’s highest court argued that Christian therapist Kaley Chiles’ speech was being unreasonably restricted by the law, though the lone dissenter – Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson – argued that some First Amendment restrictions aren’t unusual when it comes to medical professionals.

Now, it seems likely that conversion therapy bans across the country will be rendered unconstitutional in the name of religious liberty. Did the Supreme Court get it right?

What is Conversion Therapy?

First, some background. What is this practice and why is it so controversial? Conversion therapy is the practice of attempting to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity through talk therapy, typically aiming to make LGBTQ+ individuals heterosexual or cisgender.

These efforts can include counseling, behavioral conditioning, religious interventions, or other psychological methods. Conversion therapy is often rooted in a religious belief that non-heterosexual orientations or gender diversity are abnormal or undesirable, and that sexual orientation can be changed. 

Major medical and mental health organizations, including the American Psychological Association, have widely discredited the practice, citing a lack of scientific evidence for its effectiveness and significant evidence that it can cause harm – including anxiety, depression, and trauma. A 2020 report by the UN Independent Expert on sexual orientation and gender identity concluded that “depending on the severity or physical or mental pain and suffering inflicted to the victim, [conversion therapy] may amount to torture.”

Religious therapists have long stated that conversion therapy bans restrict their First Amendment rights, arguing that changing clients’ sexual orientation is the only way they can treat the LGBTQ+ community in a manner in line with their religious beliefs.

The Supreme Court Ruling

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court decisively ruled against a 2019 Colorado law banning therapists from practicing conversion therapy on minors. Kaley Chiles, the evangelical Christian therapist who originally challenged Colorado’s law, argued that it prevented her from treating youth clients who wanted to live a straight, heterosexual life “consistent with their faith.”

“While the First Amendment protects many and varied forms of expression, the spoken word is perhaps the quintessential form of protected speech. And that is exactly the kind of expression in which Ms. Chiles seeks to engage,” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch in the Court’s majority opinion. “Colorado’s law does not just regulate the content of Ms. Chiles’s speech. It goes a step further, prescribing what views she may and may not express.”

The judgment was not unexpected. In recent years, the Supreme Court has placed a high value on religious liberty and the right to faith expression in public life, siding with a high school football coach who prayed on the 50-yard line during games, ruling that a Christian web designer could legally discriminate against same-sex couples, and even agreeing with religious parents that they should be able to opt their kids out of any school lesson which might mention or acknowledge the existence of LGBTQ+ people. 

RELATED: Supreme Court Justice: U.S. Should Return to "Place of Godliness"

What Did the Dissent Say?

Two members of the Court’s liberal wing – Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor – ruled with the majority. Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing that “this decision might make speech-only therapies and other medical treatments involving practitioner speech effectively unregulatable.” She says that in overturning the lower court ruling, the Court unwittingly opened the door to the challenge of longstanding regulations governing medical ethics.

“To put it bluntly,” she wrote, “the Court could be ushering in an era of unprofessional and unsafe medical care administered by effectively unsupervised healthcare providers.”

LGBTQ+ advocates agree, and are condemning the ruling for privileging religious practice over their community’s health and safety.

“This is a dangerous practice that has been condemned by every major medical association in the country,” stated Glad Law Director of Family Policy Polly Crozier. “Today’s decision does not change the science, and it does not change the fact that conversion therapists who harm patients will still face legal consequences.”

What is your reaction?