In a lopsided 8–1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a Colorado law that barred licensed counselors from performing conversion therapy on LGBTQ+ minors. The ruling effectively ends a years-long legal battle centered on whether a state’s interest in regulating healthcare can override the First Amendment rights of mental health professionals.
The case was brought by Kaley Chiles, a Christian counselor who argued the 2019 Minor Conversion Therapy Law didn’t just regulate medical conduct, but actively discriminated against specific viewpoints.
By prohibiting counselors from discussing the possibility of changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity—while allowing counseling that affirms those identities—Chiles argued the state was picking winners and losers in the “marketplace of ideas.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, delivered a pointed defense of free expression.
RELATED: U.S. Supreme Court Topples Colorado’s Ban On “Conversion” Talk Therapy
While acknowledging that Colorado viewed the ban as a necessary public health measure, Gorsuch noted that “censorious governments throughout history have believed the same.” He wrote that the First Amendment exists to prevent the government from enforcing an “orthodoxy in thought or speech,” regardless of the state’s intent.
The decision drew sharp commentary from legal experts, including George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. Speaking on “Hannity,” Turley observed that Colorado’s repeated efforts to restrict certain types of speech have ironically resulted in a series of legal precedents that strengthen the First Amendment.
“Colorado has proven really a bonanza for the free speech community,” Turley said. “They keep on trying to curtail free speech and getting these opinions that go in the opposite direction.” He specifically pointed out that the court’s 8–1 vote demonstrated a broad consensus that the state’s actions constituted a clear limitation on speech rather than a simple regulation of professional conduct.
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, filed a concurring opinion. While they agreed with the final outcome, they emphasized that First Amendment concerns are triggered anytime a state tries to suppress a specific viewpoint, regardless of which side of a social issue the state happens to support.
READ: Newt Gingrich Sounds Alarm Over ‘Inappropriate’ Loophole In DHS Funding Deal
The lone dissenter was Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. In her written dissent, Jackson argued that the court should have treated the therapy as professional conduct subject to state regulation, rather than protected speech.
Turley called her stance “unnerving,” suggesting she was willing to brush aside significant free speech implications to allow the state to ban the practice.
Colorado’s law defined conversion therapy as any practice aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
With this ruling, the Supreme Court has set a high bar for other states attempting to implement similar bans, reinforcing the idea that even in a clinical setting, the government cannot dictate what a counselor says to their client.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
