October 08 2025, 08:15 
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in a case that will determine if a law banning so-called conversion therapy in Colorado is constitutional.
Multiple conservative justices implied in their questioning that they believe it is not.
Related
Colorado and over 20 other states have banned the harmful and debunked practice aimed at changing the sexual orientation or gender identity of young people.
In 90 minutes of argument, the justices debated whether the so-called conversion therapy banned by Colorado’s law causes harm to minors, is in any way “effective” in its intended purpose to turn kids straight, or is an infringement on the First Amendment rights of its practitioners.
Never Miss a Beat
Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights.
Subscribe to our Newsletter today
Alliance Defending Freedom, the anti-LGBTQ+ far-right organization behind the suit, is representing Kaley Chiles, a licensed Colorado counselor who is Christian and contends the ban violates her First Amendment rights to discuss her faith with patients.
Colorado countered that the case is based on a hypothetical infringement on her free speech, since the state has not disciplined Chiles or anyone else based on the law, passed by Colorado lawmakers in 2019.
The state contended there is a “mountain of evidence” that conversion therapy is ineffective and harmful.
Colorado’s statute prohibits “any practice or treatment” that tries to change a minor’s “gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”
The law includes a religious exemption for those “engaged in the practice of religious ministry.”
Jim Campbell, ADF’s chief legal counsel, described the therapy Chiles provides as helping clients “when their goals are to resolve gender dysphoria by getting comfortable with their body and realigning their identity with their sex.”
Chiles “helps them if they’re experiencing unwanted same sex attraction, if their goal is to reduce it,” he told the justices.
Colorado was investigating “anonymous” complaints against Chiles, he said, producing “ongoing harm every day” for his client.
“Ms. Chiles is being silenced, and the kids and families who want her help are unable to access it,” he said.
Shannon W. Stevenson, Colorado’s state solicitor general, answered questions from the conservative justices over the care in question and whether it’s harmful to patients.
Asked by Justice Amy Comey Barrett about the harm “conversion therapy” may inflict, Stevenson pointed to suicide attempt rates doubling for subjects of the practice, as well as increased suicidal ideation and adverse mental health outcomes for adults who had experienced attempts to change gender identity in childhood.
“Again, the harm comes not from the aversive practice; it comes from telling someone there’s something innate about yourself that you can change, and then you spend all kinds of time and effort trying to do that and you fail.”
In her opening remarks, Stevenson told the justices, “This court has recognized that state power is at its apex when it regulates to ensure safety in the healthcare professions.”
“Colorado’s law lies at the bull’s eye-center of this protection because it prohibits licensed professionals from performing one specific treatment because that treatment does not work and carries great risk of harm.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, however, told Stevenson he believes the law oversteps in that capacity of “protection” and appears to be what he called a “prior restraint on speech,” in violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment.
And Justice Samuel Alito questioned Stevenson about whether the standard of care recommended by the medical establishment — which overwhelmingly disavows “conversion therapy” — could be a moving target swayed by “ideology”.
As an example, Alito cited Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s majority opinion in Buck v. Bell in 1927, which said a sterilization program was “better for all the world” because “three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Alito implied homosexuality itself might go out of fashion in time.
“Suppose an adolescent male comes to a licensed therapist and says he’s attracted to other males but feels uneasy and guilty about those feelings and wants to end or lessen them and asks for the therapist’s help in doing so. Under your interpretation of the statute, is that banned?”
“If the therapist told him or he asked, ‘Can I become straight?’ that answer would be, it would be banned. If it was, ‘Can you help me cope with my feelings as to how I am and how I want to live my life?’ That’s permitted.”
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association reversed a nearly century-old position maintaining homosexuality as a mental disorder. The change removed the legal basis for a wide range of discriminatory practices and undercut the rationale at the time for conversion therapy.
California became the first state to bar licensed mental health professionals from providing therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation or gender identity for minors.
24 other states and dozens of cities and counties followed between 2015 and 2024.
Eight of these bans were signed by Republican governors, and every bill was passed with Republican support, according to a study by the Trevor Project and the Movement Advancement Project.
Republican Gov. Gary Herbert of Utah signed a ban in 2019, saying, “The stories of youth who have endured these so-called therapies are heart-rending.”
If this story affected you, just know you are not alone. The Trans Lifeline Hotline offers support to trans/nonbinary people struggling with mental health from 10 A.M. to 6 P.M. PST Monday-Friday. Call (877) 565-8860 to be connected to a trans/nonbinary peer operator and receive full anonymity and confidentiality. The Trevor Project Lifeline, for LGBTQ+ youth ages 24 and younger, can be reached at (866) 488-7386.
Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.