Supreme Court hears arguments on Colorado conversion therapy ban
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on October 7, 2025, in Chiles v. Salazar, a challenge to Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors. Christian counselor Kaley Chiles argues the law violates her First Amendment rights by restricting speech aimed at helping children with gender identity issues. Justices raised concerns about free speech, medical consensus, and viewpoint discrimination during the 90-minute session.
The case centers on Colorado's law prohibiting licensed counselors from engaging in practices that 'attempt or purport to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity' for minors. Plaintiff Kaley Chiles, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, contends the ban infringes on her free speech rights to provide counseling that helps gender-confused children feel comfortable in their bodies without affirming transgender identity. The Trump administration's Justice Department joined the case in support of Chiles after his 2025 return to the White House.
During arguments, several justices expressed sympathy for the free speech claims. Justice Samuel Alito led questioning, criticizing Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson's defense by referencing a 2018 Supreme Court ruling against a California law mandating abortion information at crisis pregnancy centers. Alito posed a hypothetical: 'One viewpoint is the viewpoint that a minor should be able to obtain talk therapy to overcome same-sex attraction... Looks like blatant viewpoint discrimination.' Stevenson responded that such counseling would be allowable if not aimed at changing orientation, but Alito challenged the law's text, which bans 'efforts to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction' to the same sex, calling her interpretation inconsistent.
Justice Elena Kagan echoed concerns, stating the law 'seems like viewpoint discrimination in the way we would normally understand' it, as affirming therapy faces no penalty while conversion efforts risk a $5,000 fine or license loss. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas also probed First Amendment issues, with Thomas demanding historical analogs for regulating therapists' speech since the founding era. Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that homosexuality was viewed as a mental disorder in the 1970s, questioning if states could then ban affirming therapy.
Alito further contested Colorado's reliance on medical consensus against conversion therapy, asking, 'Have there been times when the medical consensus has been politicized, has been taken over by ideology?' He cited historical support for eugenics and institutionalizing Down syndrome patients. Stevenson acknowledged concerns if standards ignored patient safety. Colorado defended the ban as regulating professional conduct, supported by evidence from major medical groups deeming conversion therapy harmful and ineffective.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson highlighted inconsistencies, noting the Court's recent upholding of Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors in U.S. v. Skrmetti, despite similar mechanisms. She expressed concern: 'I’m just... concerned about making sure that we have equivalence with respect to these things.' The decision, expected in summer 2026, could affect bans in about half of U.S. states, enacted with bipartisan support.