Sarah Toce
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled 8 to 1 that a Colorado law banning conversion therapy for minors likely violates the First Amendment, siding with a licensed counselor who argued the restriction infringed on her free speech rights.
The decision marks a significant shift in the legal landscape surrounding LGBTQ protections and professional regulation, casting doubt on similar bans enacted in nearly 30 states, including Washington.
The Trevor Project, a nonprofit suicide prevention and crisis intervention organization that supports LGBTQ youth, said the ruling is “a tragic step backward for our country that will put young lives at risk.”
“These efforts, no matter what proponents call them, no matter what any court says, are still proven to cause lasting psychological harm,” said the group’s CEO, Jaymes Black, in a statement.
“LGBTQ+ youth subjected to conversion therapy are more than twice as likely to attempt suicide compared to their peers,” Black added. “That’s why protections have been enacted in more than 20 states, and are supported by every major medical and mental health association in the country.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said the Colorado law improperly targeted speech based on viewpoint, concluding that the state cannot restrict certain conversations between counselors and clients simply because of the perspective expressed.
In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued the law regulated professional conduct, not protected speech, and warned the ruling could limit states’ ability to safeguard public health.
The case centered on a challenge brought by a Christian counselor who sought to provide talk therapy aligned with her religious beliefs to minors dealing with sexual orientation or gender identity issues. Lower courts had upheld Colorado’s 2019 ban, which prohibits licensed professionals from attempting to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The Supreme Court reversed that decision and sent the case back to lower courts, instructing them to apply stricter scrutiny in evaluating whether the law violates constitutional protections.
The ruling is expected to have broad implications nationwide. Many states adopted conversion therapy bans over the past decade as major medical organizations concluded the practice can lead to serious mental health harms, particularly among LGBTQ youth.
The president of Human Rights Campaign, a leading LGBTQ civil rights organization, slammed the high court’s ruling as “reckless” and warned it “means more American kids will suffer.”
“To undermine protections that keep kids and families safe from these abusive practices is shocking – and our children deserve better,” Kelley Robinson said.
“Today’s decision does not change the science, and it does not change the fact that conversion therapists who harm patients will still face legal consequences, and that family advocates, mental health practitioners, and all of us who care about the wellbeing of youth will continue working to shield LGBTQ+ young people and their families from this dangerous practice,” said Polly Crozier, director of family advocacy at GLAD Law.
Supporters of the decision say it reinforces free speech and religious liberty protections. Opponents, including LGBTQ advocacy groups and medical associations, argue it weakens safeguards for minors and could allow practices widely viewed as harmful to continue under the guise of counseling.
“Kids deserve real help affirming that their bodies are not a mistake and that they are wonderfully made. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today is a significant win for free speech, common sense, and families desperate to help their children,” Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer Jim Campbell said.
Campbell added, “States cannot silence voluntary conversations that help young people seeking to grow comfortable with their bodies.”
For Washington residents, the decision introduces uncertainty about the future of similar state laws. Washington is among the states that have enacted restrictions on conversion therapy for minors, and legal experts say those policies could now face renewed challenges in federal courts.
