Why It Matters
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling issued Tuesday creates significant legal uncertainty for Colorado’s 2019 law restricting conversion therapy practices on LGBTQ+ minors. The decision could have wide-reaching consequences across more than two dozen states that have enacted similar legislation, potentially requiring courts to apply a higher legal standard before such laws can be enforced.
The ruling directly affects how Colorado and other states can regulate licensed mental health professionals who provide counseling services related to sexual orientation or gender identity to minors.
What Happened
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on Tuesday in favor of a conservative Christian counselor, Kaley Chiles, who sued Colorado’s Department of Regulatory Agencies in 2022 over the state’s ban on conversion therapy. Chiles argued that Colorado’s House Bill 19-1129, signed into law in 2019, violated her First Amendment right to free speech.
Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, which holds that Colorado’s law seeks to “regulate speech based on viewpoint.” Because of that determination, the court ruled that a legal standard known as “strict scrutiny” must be applied when evaluating the law’s constitutionality.
The court did not strike down the Colorado law outright. Instead, it returned the case to a lower court to apply the strict scrutiny standard and make a final determination on whether the law can stand.
Writing for the majority, Gorsuch stated: “The First Amendment stands as a bulwark against any effort to prescribe an orthodoxy of views, reflecting a belief that each American enjoys an inalienable right to speak his mind and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for finding truth.”
Colorado Governor Jared Polis, who signed HB-1129 into law, 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.” Polis, the first openly gay man elected governor of a U.S. state, added that “conversion therapy doesn’t work, can seriously harm youth.”
By the Numbers
- 8-1: The Supreme Court’s vote margin in the majority opinion authored by Justice Gorsuch.
- 2019: The year Colorado enacted House Bill 19-1129, banning licensed mental health professionals from practicing conversion therapy on minors.
- 2022: The year counselor Kaley Chiles filed her lawsuit against Colorado’s Department of Regulatory Agencies.
- 22+ states: The number of states, plus the District of Columbia, that have passed laws protecting minors from conversion therapy, according to a report from The Trevor Project and the Movement Advancement Project.
- 1: The number of dissenting justices in the ruling, reflecting the near-unanimous nature of the court’s decision on the First Amendment question.
Zoom Out
Colorado is one of more than two dozen states that have enacted laws restricting or banning licensed mental health professionals from using conversion therapy on minors. States with such laws 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, among others.
Tuesday’s ruling introduces legal uncertainty for all of those state laws. By establishing that viewpoint-based speech regulations must survive strict scrutiny — a demanding legal standard that requires the government to demonstrate a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means — the court’s decision opens the door for similar legal challenges in other jurisdictions.
The strict scrutiny standard is one of the most rigorous tests in constitutional law. Laws subjected to it frequently fail judicial review, though outcomes depend heavily on the specific facts and arguments presented in each case.
What’s Next
The case now returns to a lower federal court, which must apply the strict scrutiny standard to Colorado’s conversion therapy ban and issue a new ruling on its constitutionality. That process is expected to take months and could produce additional appeals regardless of the outcome.
Governor Polis has indicated his administration is actively reviewing the ruling to determine what legislative or regulatory options may be available to protect minors while satisfying First Amendment requirements. Advocates and legal experts in other states are expected to closely monitor the lower court proceedings, as the eventual outcome could serve as a template for how similar laws across the country are litigated going forward.