Why It Matters
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in a Colorado conversion therapy case carries significant legal implications for states across the country, including Ohio, that have enacted or are considering laws restricting licensed counselors from providing certain talk-based therapies to LGBTQ+ minors. The ruling does not strike down the Colorado law outright, but it raises the legal bar that government restrictions on therapeutic speech must clear, potentially reshaping how such laws are written, defended, and enforced.
At least 22 states and the District of Columbia currently have laws limiting conversion therapy for minors. Each of those statutes could now face renewed legal scrutiny under the heightened constitutional standard outlined by the court.
What Happened
The U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-1 ruling on March 31, 2026, in a case challenging Colorado’s 2019 law banning conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ minors by licensed mental health professionals. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, holds that Colorado’s law regulates speech based on viewpoint, requiring courts to apply a legal standard known as “strict scrutiny” when evaluating the law’s constitutionality.
The decision does not declare the Colorado law unconstitutional. Instead, it remands the case back to a lower court, which must now apply the strict scrutiny standard and determine whether the law survives that higher threshold.
The case originated when licensed Christian counselor Kaley Chiles sued Colorado’s Department of Regulatory Agencies in 2022, arguing that the law violated her First Amendment right to free speech by restricting what she could discuss with minor clients in a counseling setting.
Colorado Governor Jared Polis, who signed House Bill 19-1129 into law in 2019, said in a statement that he was evaluating the ruling and working to find ways to protect LGBTQ youth consistent with First Amendment requirements.
By the Numbers
- 8-1: The margin of the Supreme Court’s decision, with Justice Gorsuch authoring the majority opinion.
- 22 states plus Washington, D.C.: The number of jurisdictions that have enacted laws restricting conversion therapy for minors, all of which may face similar legal challenges as a result of this ruling.
- 2019: The year Colorado enacted House Bill 19-1129, the law at the center of the case.
- 2022: The year Kaley Chiles filed her legal challenge against Colorado’s Department of Regulatory Agencies.
- 1 openly gay governor: Colorado’s Jared Polis, who signed the original law, is the first openly gay man elected governor of a U.S. state.
Zoom Out
The ruling arrives at a moment of significant legal uncertainty surrounding state regulation of licensed counseling practices. Courts have previously disagreed on whether laws restricting conversion therapy primarily regulate professional conduct, which typically receives less First Amendment protection, or whether they regulate speech, which commands much stronger constitutional safeguards.
By classifying Colorado’s law as viewpoint-based speech regulation and applying strict scrutiny, the Supreme Court’s majority effectively sides with the more protective speech framework. Under strict scrutiny, a law must serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve it — a standard that is historically difficult to satisfy.
The Trevor Project and the Movement Advancement Project have documented significant mental health risks associated with conversion therapy, including elevated rates of depression and suicidality among LGBTQ+ youth who are subjected to the practice. Medical organizations including the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association have issued statements opposing the practice as ineffective and potentially harmful.
For states like Ohio that are evaluating the scope of their own professional licensing authority over counselors, the ruling signals that future or existing conversion therapy restrictions may require more precise legal drafting to survive First Amendment challenges.
What’s Next
The case returns to a lower federal court, which must now evaluate Colorado’s law under the strict scrutiny standard. That court will determine whether the state can demonstrate a compelling interest and a narrowly tailored approach sufficient to uphold the ban.
Legal advocates in other states with similar laws are expected to review their statutes in light of the ruling. Legislators in some states may move to revise existing laws to address the constitutional concerns identified by the court. The Colorado governor’s office has indicated it is assessing options for protecting minors while remaining consistent with the court’s First Amendment guidance.
Further litigation across multiple states is widely anticipated in the months ahead.