The Supreme Court on Tuesday (ET) sided with a Christian counselor in her challenge to Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors, saying the law as applied to talk therapy conflicts with the First Amendment. The decision, issued in an 8-1 opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch, focused narrowly on whether the statute impermissibly regulates speech based on viewpoint. The court sent the case back to an appeals court for further consideration in light of that ruling.
Expanding details: Gorsuch majority, narrow holding
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion for an 8-1 court, concluding that the First Amendment “stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. ” He said lower courts had not applied sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny in the challenge brought by counselor Kaley Chiles. Gorsuch framed the question narrowly, noting that Chiles did not dispute Colorado’s ability to prohibit physical interventions and that she “only provides talk therapy. ” The majority returned the case to the appeals court to reassess the constitutional analysis in light of the high court’s guidance.
Immediate reactions: dissent, counsel and medical groups
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, writing that “The Constitution does not pose a barrier to reasonable regulation of harmful medical treatments just because substandard care comes speech instead of scalpel. ” Kaley Chiles was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom and argued that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy violates free speech protections; Chiles’ lawyer, backed by the Trump administration, argued that the First Amendment “doesn’t permit Colorado’s censorship” and that the state cannot prove the counseling is harmful for every client. Medical associations warned the justices that efforts to change sexual orientation and gender identity are illegitimate, ineffective and can be especially harmful to minors. Colorado countered that states have power to regulate health care safety and that the law targets one specific treatment because it does not work and carries great risk of harm.
Quick context
About half the states have banned or restricted the practice that aims to change a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Religious ministers are exempt from complying with Colorado’s law.
What’s next
The case will return to the appeals court for further consideration under the Supreme Court’s narrow First Amendment ruling; the high court’s instruction limits its holding to spoken counseling as applied to Kaley Chiles and does not resolve every application of the statute. Watch for the appeals court to reexamine the law’s scope and the state’s regulatory interests as they apply to talk therapy, including the contested questions about whether and how the statute regulates speech tied to counseling on conversion therapy.