WASHINGTON D.C. — In a landmark decision that could reshape the legal landscape for LGBTQ+ rights and professional speech, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on Tuesday, March 31, 2026, that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors likely violates the First Amendment.
The ruling in Chiles v. Salazar sided with Kaley Chiles, a Christian licensed professional counselor from Colorado Springs. Chiles argued that the state’s 2019 law—which prohibits licensed health professionals from engaging in practices intended to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity—unconstitutionally censored her “talk therapy” sessions with clients seeking to align their lives with their religious faith.
A “Shield Against Orthodoxy”
Writing for an ideologically diverse majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch characterized the Colorado law as a viewpoint-based restriction on speech rather than a mere regulation of medical conduct.
“The First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country,” Gorsuch wrote. “Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety. Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same.”
The majority emphasized that while the state has a legitimate interest in prohibiting physical or “aversive” interventions (such as electric shock or chemically induced nausea), it cannot flatly ban consensual “talk therapy” simply because it disagrees with the therapist’s perspective or the client’s goals.
A Lone, Sharp Dissent
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissenter, taking the rare step of reading her opinion from the bench for nearly 20 minutes to underscore her “strong disagreement.”Jackson argued that the court’s decision “opens a dangerous can of worms” by stripping states of their traditional power to regulate the safety and quality of medical care. She contended that “substandard care” does not become protected speech simply because it is delivered through words rather than a scalpel.”It ultimately risks grave harm to Americans’ health and well-being,” Jackson wrote, noting that major medical associations have long condemned conversion therapy as ineffective and psychologically damaging to youth.
Key Takeaways of the Ruling
National Implications
The decision is a major victory for the Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative legal group representing Chiles, and follows a series of recent Supreme Court rulings that have expanded religious liberties.
While the ruling specifically addressed Colorado’s statute, legal experts say it effectively signals the end for broad state-level bans on conversion therapy across the country. Advocates for LGBTQ+ youth expressed “profound disappointment,” fearing the decision will leave vulnerable minors exposed to practices that the United Nations and numerous medical bodies have characterized as a form of “torture.”
The case now returns to the lower courts, where Colorado must prove that its ban is “narrowly tailored” to serve a compelling state interest—a standard the Supreme Court suggested the current law fails to meet.