March 10 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a legal challenge to a Colorado law that bans conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ minors.
The high court agreed to take up the challenge brought by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative group representing Christian counselor Kaley Chiles in opposition to the state law, argues that Colorado’s law violates First Amendment rights by “censoring” client conversions.
“All Americans should be allowed to speak freely and seek the best possible help they desire,” Cody Barnett, an attorney with the alliance, said in a statement.
The justices will review the ruling of a lower court which says that the Colorado law is a restriction on treatment but not speech. They will ultimately decide if state and local governments can enforce laws which ban conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ minors.
However, the high court has declined in the past to rule on similar cases as recently as 2023.
Conversion therapy, as defined by the state, is an attempt to “change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”
“In Colorado, we are committed to protecting professional standards of care so that no one suffers unscientific and harmful so-called gay conversion therapy,” the state’s Attorney General Phil Weiser wrote in a statement.
At least 23 states and the District of Columbia ban conversation therapy for minors, according to the Movement Advancement Project. In 2022, lawmaker in New Zealand overwhelmingly passed a similar law to ban conversion therapy.
Chiles, a Christian and licensed professional counselor in the state, in 2022 sued Colorado in federal court claiming the conversation ban violated her free speech and targeted Christians — which a district court rejected.
In September, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 decision that the prohibition did not impinge free speech nor does it target religion. In its ruling, the court said the ban aligned with medical consensus that conversation therapy is “ineffective and harmful” and “rationally serves” the interests of the state in protecting minors.
“These clients believe their lives will be more fulfilling if aligned with the teachings of their faith, and they want to achieve freedom from what they see as harmful self-perceptions and sexual behaviors,” a lawyer for Chiles wrote in a court filing.
It will be decided in the court’s next term beginning in October.