Why It Matters
A U.S. Supreme Court decision issued Tuesday has reopened a federal lawsuit against Michigan’s 2023 law prohibiting licensed therapists from practicing conversion therapy on minors. The ruling establishes a higher legal standard that state conversion therapy bans across the country must now meet, potentially affecting similar laws in more than two dozen states. Michigan’s law, signed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, has already been paused by a federal appellate court and now faces a more difficult path to enforcement.
What Happened
The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Chiles v. Salazar, a case originating in Colorado, in favor of a licensed therapist who argued that her state’s conversion therapy ban violated her First Amendment right to free speech and infringed on her ability to counsel clients in a manner consistent with her religious beliefs. The court determined that such laws must be evaluated under “strict scrutiny,” a more demanding constitutional standard than courts had previously applied to conversion therapy restrictions.
The justices remanded the final enforcement question back to a lower court, though legal analysts noted the majority opinion strongly suggested the Colorado ban would not survive the strict scrutiny test. The decision was handed down on Tuesday, March 31, 2026.
In Michigan, a parallel case — Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee and Hillsdale Counties v. Whitmer — had been placed on hold while the Supreme Court resolved the Colorado dispute. With that ruling now issued, the Michigan case will proceed in federal court. A preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in December had already suspended enforcement of Michigan’s law pending the outcome of the litigation.
By the Numbers
- 8-1: The Supreme Court vote in Chiles v. Salazar, with only one justice dissenting from the majority’s First Amendment analysis.
- 22: The number of states, including Michigan, that had enacted conversion therapy bans at the time Whitmer signed the Michigan law in July 2023.
- 2023: The year Michigan’s conversion therapy prohibition became law, placing it among the most recent states to adopt such legislation before the legal landscape shifted.
- 1: Active preliminary injunction from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals currently blocking enforcement of Michigan’s law.
- 2: Separate legal proceedings now converging on Michigan’s law — the stayed federal lawsuit and the Sixth Circuit injunction — both of which will be shaped by the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Zoom Out
The Supreme Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar carries implications that extend well beyond Michigan and Colorado. Conversion therapy bans have been enacted in more than two dozen states and numerous municipalities over the past decade, most structured around prohibitions on licensed mental health professionals using certain therapeutic approaches with minor clients. Those laws were generally upheld under lower constitutional standards by federal appeals courts in prior years.
By elevating the applicable standard to strict scrutiny — which requires the government to demonstrate a compelling interest and that the law is narrowly tailored to serve that interest — the Supreme Court has made it significantly harder for states to defend these statutes against First Amendment challenges brought by licensed counselors. Legal experts anticipate that similar lawsuits may be filed or reactivated in other states where such bans exist.
The ruling reflects a broader tension in constitutional law between state authority to regulate licensed professional conduct and First Amendment protections for speech, even speech that occurs within a professional therapeutic relationship.
What’s Next
The federal case against Michigan’s conversion therapy ban, Catholic Charities v. Whitmer, will now advance through the court system with the Supreme Court’s strict scrutiny framework guiding the analysis. The Sixth Circuit’s preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law remains in effect, meaning the ban will continue to be unenforced while litigation proceeds.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and Gov. Whitmer both publicly criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling, signaling that the state intends to defend the law in court. A final judicial determination on whether Michigan’s statute satisfies the strict scrutiny standard could take months or longer, depending on the pace of proceedings in federal court.