Why It Matters
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in a Colorado conversion therapy case carries significant implications for Arizona and at least 22 other states that have enacted similar laws restricting licensed counselors from providing certain forms of talk therapy to LGBTQ+ minors. The decision does not strike down any existing law outright, but it establishes a demanding legal standard that could reshape how states regulate therapeutic speech going forward.
The ruling places laws across the country — including those in states neighboring Arizona — under renewed constitutional scrutiny, and legal challenges to similar statutes are now more likely to proceed with greater momentum in federal courts.
What Happened
The U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-1 ruling on Tuesday, March 31, 2026, siding with Colorado licensed counselor Kaley Chiles, who sued Colorado’s Department of Regulatory Agencies in 2022 over the state’s 2019 ban on conversion therapy for minors.
Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, which holds that Colorado’s law seeks to “regulate speech based on viewpoint” and therefore must be evaluated under a legal standard known as “strict scrutiny” — one of the most demanding tests in constitutional law. Under strict scrutiny, a government must demonstrate that its law serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal.
The court did not declare Colorado’s law unconstitutional. Instead, it sent the case back to a lower court to apply the strict scrutiny standard and make a final determination on the law’s validity.
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, who signed House Bill 19-1129 into law in 2019, said Tuesday that his office was “evaluating the U.S. Supreme Court ruling and working to figure out how to better protect LGBTQ youth and free speech in Colorado.”
By the Numbers
- 8-1: The margin of the Supreme Court’s ruling, reflecting near-unanimous agreement that strict scrutiny applies to viewpoint-based speech regulations of this kind.
- 22 states plus Washington, D.C.: The number of jurisdictions with active laws restricting conversion therapy for minors that could face similar legal challenges following this ruling, according to a report from The Trevor Project and the Movement Advancement Project.
- 2019: The year Colorado enacted House Bill 19-1129, the conversion therapy ban at the center of this case.
- 2022: The year Chiles filed her lawsuit against Colorado’s Department of Regulatory Agencies, initiating the legal challenge that reached the Supreme Court.
- 1 dissent: Only one justice voted against the majority opinion, underscoring the breadth of agreement on the First Amendment question, if not necessarily the underlying policy outcome.
Zoom Out
The ruling adds a significant new chapter to ongoing national legal debates over how far states may go in regulating licensed professional speech. Courts have long recognized that states hold broad authority to set standards for professional licensing and practice. However, a growing body of First Amendment litigation has challenged the boundaries of that authority when regulations target the content or viewpoint of speech delivered in a professional context.
States with conversion therapy bans on the books include California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, in addition to Colorado and the District of Columbia. Each of these laws could now face renewed legal pressure under the strict scrutiny framework articulated by the court.
Arizona does not currently have a statewide ban on conversion therapy for minors, though some Arizona municipalities have enacted local restrictions. The Supreme Court’s ruling could affect the legal landscape for any future state or local legislative efforts in Arizona as well.
What’s Next
The case now returns to a lower federal court, which must apply the strict scrutiny standard to Colorado’s 2019 law and issue a new ruling on its constitutionality. That process could take months or longer, and the outcome will likely influence how courts across the country handle related challenges.
Legal advocacy organizations on both sides of the issue are expected to file additional challenges and amicus briefs in pending cases in other states. State legislatures with existing conversion therapy bans may also review and potentially revise their laws in an attempt to meet the strict scrutiny threshold. Colorado Gov. Polis indicated his office is actively exploring options to address both youth protection and free speech requirements under the new legal framework.