Supreme Court hears oral arguments on conversion therapy speech rights
Supreme Court ruled against Colorado's conversion therapy ban in 8-1 decision, striking down the law on free speech grounds.
Objective Facts
The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that Colorado's conversion therapy ban violates free speech rights, with Justice Neil Gorsuch writing for the conservative majority. The case was brought by counselor Kaley Chiles, who argued the law violated First Amendment protections. Colorado argued therapy is a form of health care that states have responsibility to regulate, not protected speech. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissenter, saying the decision "opens a dangerous can of worms" by undermining states' rights to regulate medical care. The 8-1 decision is likely to have national implications, as more than 20 states have similar laws.
Left-Leaning Perspective
LGBTQ advocacy organizations, including The Trevor Project, condemned the ruling as "a tragic step backward for our country that will put young lives at risk." The Human Rights Campaign called the decision "reckless" and said it "means more American kids will suffer," arguing the court has "weaponized free-speech in order to prioritize anti-LGBTQ+ bias over the safety, health and wellbeing of children." Left advocates cite research showing that "LGBTQ+ youth subjected to conversion therapy are more than twice as likely to attempt suicide compared to their peers." They emphasize that every major medical and mental health association in the United States has condemned conversion therapy practices. The left argues conversion therapy is not merely expression but a form of clinical intervention associated with depression, anxiety, and increased suicide risk. Left-leaning outlets emphasize harm to vulnerable minors while treating Chiles's advocacy as deceptive reframing of dangerous practices. They minimize her free speech arguments by classifying therapy as professional conduct rather than speech, and focus heavily on medical consensus against the practice. What they omit: Liberal Justice Elena Kagan herself wrote a concurring opinion noting that if Colorado's law had been viewpoint-neutral rather than targeting one side of a debate, "it would raise a different and more difficult question." This suggests some left-leaning legal thinkers acknowledge viewpoint discrimination concerns.
Right-Leaning Perspective
Conservative legal advocates, including Jim Campbell of Alliance Defending Freedom, called the ruling "a significant win for free speech, common sense, and families desperate to help their children," stating "States cannot silence voluntary conversations that help young people seeking to grow comfortable with their bodies." Religious legal organizations applauded the decision, with First Liberty Institute stating "Americans should never have their professional speech censored simply because the government disfavors that speech" and arguing the court "sent a clear message to state governments that the Constitution actually means what it says." The right argues Colorado's law regulates speech based on viewpoint rather than conduct, and therefore is not like other health care regulations that focus on conduct. Right-leaning advocates contend counselors should not be limited to promoting state-approved goals like gender transition, and argue the ruling protects counselors in more than 20 states. Chiles herself stated the ruling was a victory for kids and families, saying she looks forward to helping young clients who "choose the goal of growing comfortable with their bodies." Right outlets frame this as protecting religious professionals' rights to express minority viewpoints without government censorship. They emphasize Gorsuch's language about preventing "orthodoxy" and protecting unpopular speech. What they omit: The medical consensus that conversion therapy "has been forcefully repudiated by every major medical organization in the country on the grounds that it doesn't work and often leads to depression and suicidal thoughts in minors." Right-leaning coverage also minimizes the technical narrowness of the ruling—the court did not strike down the law outright but remanded it for stricter scrutiny.
Deep Dive
Colorado passed its ban in 2019 to prevent licensed mental health professionals from practicing conversion therapy. During oral arguments, Chiles's lawyer argued her practice involves only talk therapy with no physical restraints or coercion. At oral arguments in October, a majority of justices signaled they were prepared to rule against Colorado, appearing to reject the idea that states could regulate talk therapy the same way as medical procedures. The central issue became whether restricting speech about orientation/identity change constitutes content-based or viewpoint-based discrimination. Gorsuch's majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. This unusual coalition—including two liberal justices—reflects disagreement over whether the law is truly viewpoint discriminatory. Justice Kagan wrote separately to say that if Colorado's law had been viewpoint neutral, "it would have been a tougher case to decide," but in this case, "because the state has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward." This distinction matters: the ruling may not protect all therapy restrictions, only viewpoint-discriminatory ones. The decision is technically narrow—it does not strike down Colorado's law outright but sends the case back to lower courts for stricter scrutiny. The ruling is expected to eventually make similar laws in other states unenforceable. The 2019 law has never resulted in actual sanctions against any provider. Key unresolved question: whether states could craft viewpoint-neutral restrictions (e.g., banning all orientation/identity-change therapy equally, regardless of direction) that would survive scrutiny—a possibility Kagan's concurrence left open.