Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(169,696 posts)
Tue Mar 31, 2026, 10:20 AM 7 hrs ago

Supreme Court rules against Colorado ban on 'conversion therapy' for LGBTQ+ kids

Source: AP

Updated 10:27 AM EDT, March 31, 2026


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against a law banning “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ+ kids in Colorado, one of about two dozen states that ban the discredited practice. An 8-1 high court majority sided with a Christian counselor who argues the law banning talk therapy violates the First Amendment. The justices agreed that the law raises free speech concerns and sent it back to a lower court to decide if it meets a legal standard that few laws pass.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court, said the law “censors speech based on viewpoint.” The First Amendment, he wrote, “stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.”

In a solo dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that states should be free to regulate health care, even if that means incidental restrictions on speech. The decision, Jackson wrote, “opens a dangerous can of worms” that “threatens to impair states’ ability to regulate the provision of medical care in any respect.”

The decision is the latest in a line of recent cases in which the justices have backed claims of religious discrimination while taking a skeptical view of LGBTQ+ rights.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-conversion-therapy-colorado-92b34295f9ef497a4a1cbeb56c9b74c6



Link to RULING (PDF) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-539_fd9g.pdf

8-1 with Jackson as the lone dissent. This was apparently argued as a "Free Speech" case.


Article updated.

Original article/headline -

Supreme Court rules against Colorado ban on 'conversion therapy' for LGBTQ kids

Updated 10:08 AM EDT, March 31, 2026


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against a law banning "conversion therapy" for LGBTQ+ kids in Colorado, one of about two dozen states that ban the discredited practice. An 8-1 high court majority sided with a Christian counselor who argues the law banning talk therapy violates the First Amendment. The justices agreed that the law raises free speech concerns and sent it back to a lower court to decide if it meets a legal standard that few laws pass.

It's the latest in a line of recent cases in which the justices have backed claims of religious discrimination while taking a skeptical view of LGBTQ rights. Counselor Kaley Chiles, with support from President Donald Trump's Republican administration, said the law wrongly bars her from offering voluntary, faith-based therapy for kids.

Chiles contends her approach is different from "conversion therapy" practices from decades ago, like shock therapy. Her attorneys argued that the ban makes it hard for parents to find therapists willing to discuss gender identity with kids unless the counseling affirms transition.

Colorado disagreed, saying its law does allow wide-ranging conversations about gender identity and sexual orientation and exempts religious ministries. The state says the measure simply bars using therapy to try to "convert" LGBTQ people to heterosexuality or traditional gender expectations, a practice that has been scientifically discredited and linked to serious harm.
30 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court rules against Colorado ban on 'conversion therapy' for LGBTQ+ kids (Original Post) BumRushDaShow 7 hrs ago OP
Obergefell is in danger Prairie Gates 7 hrs ago #1
I doubt Obergefell makes it through next year's docket JT45242 5 hrs ago #11
I don't know that there's a live case coming through the courts that would challenge Obergefell Prairie Gates 5 hrs ago #15
Not any time soon FBaggins 2 hrs ago #29
There were actually two reasons for my timeframe in my post Prairie Gates 2 hrs ago #30
Conversion therapy is torture LetMyPeopleVote 7 hrs ago #2
I could accept this, though not like it, if this principle were being applied anything like equally dsc 7 hrs ago #3
Yikes! Kagan and Sotomayor concurring with the conservatives Jose Garcia 7 hrs ago #4
This is an excerpt from the Kagan & Sotomayor concurring opinion. Justice Kagan authored it & Justice Sotomayor joined. 24601 6 hrs ago #6
Disappointing. Conversion therapy is harmful quackery. SunSeeker 6 hrs ago #9
They actually cover that in the opinion Shrek 5 hrs ago #12
Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is "only speech" as well, but it is regulated. SunSeeker 5 hrs ago #16
Sure, but yelling in a crowded theatre isn't speech based on viewpoint Shrek 3 hrs ago #23
Or they just voted for what they thought was right Polybius 3 hrs ago #24
The weird christo-fascist sleep-away camps wolfie001 6 hrs ago #5
They charge a lot of money for those camps. dickthegrouch 5 hrs ago #19
No protections from mental abuse by religious fanatics. maxsolomon 6 hrs ago #7
"We condone child abuse," says Supreme Court sakabatou 6 hrs ago #8
WTF? It is not a Free Speech question. It is a medical, sociological, and ethical question. Martin68 5 hrs ago #10
Apparently that's how it works, according to the opinion Shrek 5 hrs ago #14
That is impossible angrychair 5 hrs ago #20
If that is what the decision is based on, then it does seem reasonable to me. As long as advice is freely requested and Martin68 4 hrs ago #22
Many of the people undergoing conversion therapy are minors forced by their bigoted Christian parents. Lonestarblue 3 hrs ago #26
The court opened the door to any and all quack Klarkashton 5 hrs ago #13
Sweet, I'll set up shop tomorrow angrychair 5 hrs ago #17
So it'll be okay for us to develop a conversion therapy program... WestMichRad 5 hrs ago #18
MAGAt conversion therapy. AWESOME! Dr. T 3 hrs ago #25
Lots of other instances where the government is restricting speech. dickthegrouch 5 hrs ago #21
Deadline Legal Blog-Supreme Court sides with Christian counselor over Colorado on 'conversion therapy' for minors LetMyPeopleVote 3 hrs ago #27
Deadline Legal Blog-Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson steps out alone, again - this time on 'conversion therapy' LetMyPeopleVote 2 hrs ago #28

JT45242

(4,042 posts)
11. I doubt Obergefell makes it through next year's docket
Tue Mar 31, 2026, 12:23 PM
5 hrs ago

It is on the Project 2025 list.

It is a chance to make another scapegoat -- one that Nazis -- historical and current will be happy to send to death camps.

This is a sad day for our country and the rule of law.

Prairie Gates

(8,147 posts)
15. I don't know that there's a live case coming through the courts that would challenge Obergefell
Tue Mar 31, 2026, 12:29 PM
5 hrs ago

Which is why I pushed the timeline out a bit.

The right has made tremendous headway over the last five years backlashing LGBTQ issues into oblivion, but I think marriage is still clinging to some support. But four years from now, if the backlash continues apace? It's going to get pulled back on a state's right basis, with the "moderate" excuse from the media and the Scott Bessents of the world that you can still get married on Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, etc,, the same way they did it with Roe.

FBaggins

(28,706 posts)
29. Not any time soon
Tue Mar 31, 2026, 03:35 PM
2 hrs ago

I see that you noticed that there are no pending cases that raise the issue and selected a longer prediction timeline to account for that. But note that the issue was on their desk just a few months ago and they unanimously rejected even considering the case.

Prairie Gates

(8,147 posts)
30. There were actually two reasons for my timeframe in my post
Tue Mar 31, 2026, 03:45 PM
2 hrs ago

1) No live cases (which you mentioned)
2) The political ground is not yet cleared for it. However, if the vicious right wing/ GOP/ conservative backlash against LGBTQ positions continues at its current rate, the ground will be cleared in the next few years.

There's plenty of polling on the second point. There was an Op-Ed on the erosion of LGBTQ positions in public polling in the NY Times last week, and another article covering the same ground in the Atlantic. It's bad. The right wing/GOP/conservative backlash has been relentless and successful. The corrupt Supreme Court justices still don't have the political cover to overturn Obergefell, but they may well have it soon.

dsc

(53,395 posts)
3. I could accept this, though not like it, if this principle were being applied anything like equally
Tue Mar 31, 2026, 10:35 AM
7 hrs ago

but in terms of abortion doctors this free speech argument was directly refuted by most of the members of this very same court.

24601

(4,141 posts)
6. This is an excerpt from the Kagan & Sotomayor concurring opinion. Justice Kagan authored it & Justice Sotomayor joined.
Tue Mar 31, 2026, 11:23 AM
6 hrs ago

"The Court today decides that the Colorado law challenged here, as applied to talk therapy, conflicts with core First
Amendment principles because it regulates speech based on viewpoint. See ante, at 23. I agree. I write only to note
that if Colorado had instead enacted a content-based but viewpoint-neutral law, it would raise a different and more
difficult question."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-539_fd9g.pdf

SunSeeker

(58,274 posts)
9. Disappointing. Conversion therapy is harmful quackery.
Tue Mar 31, 2026, 12:09 PM
6 hrs ago

Government regulates harmful speech all the time. This should have been one of those times.

Shrek

(4,425 posts)
12. They actually cover that in the opinion
Tue Mar 31, 2026, 12:23 PM
5 hrs ago
Colorado’s law does not implicate any recognized exception to the Court’s usual First Amendment rules. It does not require disclosure of “factual, noncontroversial information in . . . ‘commercial speech,’ ”id., at 768, and as applied to Ms. Chiles, it does not regulate conduct in a way that only “incidentally burden[s] speech,” id., at 769. All she does is speak, and speech is all Colorado seeks to regulate. Colorado’s argument that the law regulates speech only incidentally fails because the Court’s speech-incident-to-conduct doctrine asks whether the law restricts speech only because it is integrally related to unlawful conduct, or whether the law restricts expressive conduct only for reasons unrelated to its content. Colorado’s law does neither: Ms. Chiles’s speech does not bear a close causal connection to any separately unlawful conduct, and the State’s law trains directly on the content of her speech, permitting some viewpoints but not others.

(c) Colorado cannot establish that applying its law to Ms. Chiles falls within a long tradition of permissible content regulation.

SunSeeker

(58,274 posts)
16. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is "only speech" as well, but it is regulated.
Tue Mar 31, 2026, 12:42 PM
5 hrs ago

Because it is harmful. Like this. "Conversation therapy" is torture and can lead to suicides.

Sotomayor and Kagan really missed the point here in concurring with the bigots of the majority.

Shrek

(4,425 posts)
23. Sure, but yelling in a crowded theatre isn't speech based on viewpoint
Tue Mar 31, 2026, 02:10 PM
3 hrs ago
Justice Elena Kagan joined the Gorsuch opinion, but she also penned a four-page concurring opinion that was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She agreed with the majority that “the Colorado law challenged here, as applied to talk therapy, conflicts with core First Amendment principles because it regulates speech based on viewpoint.” Kagan suggested, however, that “if Colorado had instead enacted a content-based but viewpoint-neutral law, it would raise a different and more difficult question.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/supreme-court-sides-with-therapist-in-challenge-to-colorados-ban-on-conversion-therapy/

wolfie001

(7,658 posts)
5. The weird christo-fascist sleep-away camps
Tue Mar 31, 2026, 11:09 AM
6 hrs ago

That's what I think is a big problem. 'But I'm a Cheerleader' was a comedy but the real world is not.

dickthegrouch

(4,516 posts)
19. They charge a lot of money for those camps.
Tue Mar 31, 2026, 12:51 PM
5 hrs ago

They signed contracts for buildings and supplies and (quack) medics.
The ban cost them money. That's all this is really about.
FUCK THEM! (SCROTUS and the KKKRistians).

Martin68

(27,729 posts)
10. WTF? It is not a Free Speech question. It is a medical, sociological, and ethical question.
Tue Mar 31, 2026, 12:22 PM
5 hrs ago

Last edited Tue Mar 31, 2026, 01:29 PM - Edit history (1)

It could only be considered free speech if there was no coercion involved, and only speech in which the subject can speak freely and leave at any time.

Shrek

(4,425 posts)
14. Apparently that's how it works, according to the opinion
Tue Mar 31, 2026, 12:27 PM
5 hrs ago
Kaley Chiles holds a master’s degree in clinical mental health and a state counseling license in Colorado. Ms. Chiles does not begin counseling with any predetermined goals; instead, she sits down with clients, discusses their goals, and then formulates methods of counseling that will most benefit them, seeking throughout to respect her clients’ fundamental right of self-determination. On matters of sexuality and gender, Ms. Chiles’s clients, including young people, often have different goals: Some are content with their sexual orientation and gender identity and want help with social issues or family relationships, while others hope to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of harmony with their bodies. With all those clients, Ms. Chiles seeks to help them reach their stated objectives.

angrychair

(12,276 posts)
20. That is impossible
Tue Mar 31, 2026, 12:56 PM
5 hrs ago
while others hope to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors


It is impossible to change who you are sexually attracted to and anyone implying you can is a quack and should be prevented from trying to do that because it's incredibly dangerous.

Martin68

(27,729 posts)
22. If that is what the decision is based on, then it does seem reasonable to me. As long as advice is freely requested and
Tue Mar 31, 2026, 01:31 PM
4 hrs ago

the client is free to leave at any time. that's a far cry from "conversation therapy" that is coercive and unwanted.

Lonestarblue

(13,474 posts)
26. Many of the people undergoing conversion therapy are minors forced by their bigoted Christian parents.
Tue Mar 31, 2026, 02:58 PM
3 hrs ago

I can see where a genuinely confused child could benefit from therapy, but I have my doubts that therapists who focus on their religious beliefs and biases have the best interests of the child in mind rather than a need to satisfy parents that their child has been "cured" of being gay.

Klarkashton

(5,288 posts)
13. The court opened the door to any and all quack
Tue Mar 31, 2026, 12:23 PM
5 hrs ago

Bullshit that the states want to restrict in good faith.

angrychair

(12,276 posts)
17. Sweet, I'll set up shop tomorrow
Tue Mar 31, 2026, 12:50 PM
5 hrs ago

Medical quackery is now legal. I'll just talk about how my book cures cancer and it's perfectly legal now.

Now legal just to claim anything you want and it's perfectly legal and fine.

WestMichRad

(3,249 posts)
18. So it'll be okay for us to develop a conversion therapy program...
Tue Mar 31, 2026, 12:51 PM
5 hrs ago

… to torture the stupidity out of MAGAs?

Dr. T

(644 posts)
25. MAGAt conversion therapy. AWESOME!
Tue Mar 31, 2026, 02:39 PM
3 hrs ago

Put them in a sensory deprivation room with MS NOW and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on a continuous loop.

dickthegrouch

(4,516 posts)
21. Lots of other instances where the government is restricting speech.
Tue Mar 31, 2026, 01:09 PM
5 hrs ago

Ask the real medics at CDC or DHSS or VA.
Ask the retired generals who are being pilloried for talking about illegal orders.
Ask the Judges who are being victimised for ruling against the government.
Ask the journalists who are so afraid of their access to the lies, that they won't ask about the lies.
Ask.
Ask.

LetMyPeopleVote

(179,788 posts)
27. Deadline Legal Blog-Supreme Court sides with Christian counselor over Colorado on 'conversion therapy' for minors
Tue Mar 31, 2026, 03:09 PM
3 hrs ago

Medical groups warned that efforts to change sexual orientation and gender identity are illegitimate, ineffective and can be especially harmful to minors.

Deadline: Legal Blog - Supreme Court sides with Christian counselor over Colorado on ‘conversion therapy’ for minors

Medical groups warned that efforts to change sexual orientation and gender identity are illegitimate, ineffective and can be especially harmful to minors.

Lola Gayle (@lolagaylec.bsky.social) 2026-03-31T15:45:12.868Z

https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-conversion-therapy-colorado

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with a Christian counselor over Colorado in her challenge to the state’s ban on so-called conversion therapy for minors.

In an 8-1 ruling by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court said that the state’s law, as applied to talk therapy provided by the counselor, Kaley Chiles, conflicts with First Amendment principles because it regulates speech based on viewpoint. Gorsuch wrote that the amendment “stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.”

About half the states in the country have banned or restricted the practice that aims to change a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity.....

Focusing in on Chiles’ claim, Gorsuch called the question before the court a narrow one. “Ms. Chiles does not question that Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy has some constitutionally sound applications,” the Trump appointee wrote. He noted that she doesn’t take issue with the state’s effort to prohibit physical interventions, but rather, she only provides talk therapy.

The problem, she argued, is that because the state’s law strikes at the heart of First Amendment speech protections, the lower courts didn’t provide rigorous enough scrutiny against the state in her legal challenge. ....

Upholding the district court’s ruling against Chiles, a divided appellate panel said the law only “incidentally” involves speech because counseling necessarily involves speech, but that the state isn’t restricting her constitutional expression.

“In other words, Ms. Chiles’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech is implicated under the MCTL [Minor Conversion Therapy Law], but it is not abridged,” the panel majority said, over dissent from a judge who said the majority’s “wordplay” in distinguishing speech from conduct posed “a serious threat to free speech.”

The panel majority noted that Chiles remained free to share her views on conversion therapy, sexual orientation and gender identity; that she can criticize Colorado for restricting her administration of conversion therapy; that she can refer clients to other service providers, like religious ministers; and that she can provide conversion therapy to adult clients.

I feel a little better. Talk therapy is not the same as the torture methods used in many forms of conversion therapy. Other forms of conversion therapy are still illegal.

LetMyPeopleVote

(179,788 posts)
28. Deadline Legal Blog-Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson steps out alone, again - this time on 'conversion therapy'
Tue Mar 31, 2026, 03:18 PM
2 hrs ago

The Biden appointee made the rare move of dissenting from the bench, in the latest action separating her from her colleagues.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson steps out alone, again – this time on ‘conversion therapy’

💾

©

Irish News 🇮🇪 (@news-flows-ir.bsky.social) 2026-03-31T16:56:54.000000Z

https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/justice-ketanji-brown-jackson-dissent-conversion-therapy

In her dissent, the Biden appointee wrote that the practice of seeking to “convert” a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity has been “widely discredited within the medical and scientific community” and found to cause “lasting psychological harm.”

Departing from Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion for eight members of the court, Jackson wrote, “The conclusion that a State can regulate the provision of medical care even if, in so doing, it incidentally restricts the speech of some providers, fully comports with the First Amendment’s animating principles.”

She continued: “Ultimately, because the majority plays with fire in this case, I fear that the people of this country will get burned.” Until now, she wrote, licensed medical professionals couldn’t do or say whatever they wanted. States could regulate them, which, she wrote, contributed to the high quality of American care.

“Today, the Court turns its back on that tradition,” Jackson wrote. “And, to be completely frank, no one knows what will happen now.” She accused the majority of reaching this “momentous decision” without “adequately grappling with the potential long-term and disastrous implications of this ruling.”

The justice closed her solo dissent by worrying about the majority having opened a “dangerous can of worms” that “threatens to impair States’ ability to regulate the provision of medical care in any respect,” pushes the Constitution “into uncharted territory in an utterly irrational fashion” and “risks grave harm to Americans’ health and wellbeing.”

I agree with Jackson's dissent. I believe that conversion therapy is close to torture. The fact that you can use "talk therapy" may open a dangerous can of worms. I strongly believe in the First Amendment but here there needs to be limits. Talk therapy is less objectionable compared to other methods of conversion therapy but it has risks.
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court rules again...