SCOTUSblog By Amy Howe 3/10/2025
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to weigh in on the constitutionality of Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” – that is, the effort to “convert” someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. That announcement came as part of a list of orders released on Monday morning from the justices’ private conference last week.
Less than a year and a half ago, the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to a Washington state law that prohibits licensed therapists from practicing conversion therapy on children. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the decision not to weigh in then, indicating that they would have granted review. On Monday, the justices agreed to take up a challenge to a similar ban, this time from Colorado.
The case was filed by Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor and a practicing Christian. She sometimes works with clients who want to discuss issues such that, she says, “implicate Christian values about human sexuality and the treatment of their own body.” And although Chiles “never promises that she can solve” issues relating to gender identity, gender roles, and sexual attraction, “she believes clients can accept the bodies that God has given them and find peace.” She contends that the law violates her First Amendment rights to free speech and to freely exercise her religion.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit rebuffed Chiles’s challenge. It reasoned that Colorado enacted the law, based on evidence of the harms of conversion therapy, as part of its effort to regulate the health care profession and that the law primarily regulates therapists’ conduct, rather than their speech.
Chiles came to the Supreme Court in November, asking the justices to hear her case. She contended that governments like Colorado “do not have a freer hand to regulate speech simply because the speaker is ‘licensed’ or giving ‘specialized advice.’” And she warned that the 10th Circuit’s rule “has devastating real-world consequences. In jurisdictions with counseling restrictions,” she wrote, “many young people cannot receive the care they seek — and critically need.”
The state countered that the ban on conversion therapy was based on “overwhelming evidence that efforts to change a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity are unsafe and ineffective.” And it distinguished Chiles’s counseling of her patients from “a chat with one’s college roommate,” emphasizing that the two scenarios receive different protections under the First Amendment. “Unlike laypersons,” it told the justices, “those who choose to practice as health professionals are required, among various other responsibilities, to provide treatment to their patients consistent with their field’s standard of care.”
In a brief order on Monday, the justices granted Chiles’s petition for review. The case will likely be argued sometime in the fall, with a decision to follow by summer 2026.
In a second case granted on Monday, the justices agreed to decide whether state procedural rules apply to lawsuits filed in federal court.
More:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/supreme-court-takes-up-challenge-to-colorado-ban-on-conversion-therapy/
