conversion

The US Supreme Court have been presented with arguments in a case attempting to overturn Colorado’s conversion therapy ban for minors.

Back in June 2019, Colorado became the 18th state to prohibit the harmful and discredited practice from being used with its

So-called conversion therapy refers to any attempt at changing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity and can often involve cruel and dangerous methods such as electroshock therapy, nausea-causing drugs, verbal and physical abuse, food deprivation, and forced prayer.

While it has been widely condemned by health experts and scientific bodies worldwide, the US Supreme Court has recently considered the possibility of overturning Colorado’s ban on the harmful practice —a move that could roll back similar laws in other states.

On 7 October, the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, heard oral arguments regarding the Chiles v. Salazar case – which stemmed from Christian therapist Kaley Chiles’ lawsuit against the state of Colorado.  

In her petition, the licensed professional counsellor, who is represented by the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), claimed that the state’s conversion therapy ban violates her freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

During opening arguments, Chiles’ lawyer, James Campbell, alleged that Colorado law forbids counsellors like his client “from helping minors pursue state disfavored goals on issues of issues of gender and sexuality.”

“This law prophylactically bans voluntary conversations, censoring widely held views on debated moral, religious and scientific questions. Aside from this law and recent ones like it, Colorado hasn’t identified any similar viewpoint-based bans on counselling. These laws are historic outliers,” he alleged.

During Colorado’s opening argument, the Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson defended the state’s ban, citing 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 a great risk of harm,” she continued.

“No court has ever held that a law like this implicates the First Amendment, and for good reason. First, the law applies only to treatments, that is, only when a licensed professional is delivering clinical care to an individual patient. In that setting, providers have a duty to act in their patients’ best interest and according to their professional standards.

“The First Amendment affords no exception. Second, because this law governs only treatments, it does not interfere with any First Amendment interest. It does not stop a professional from expressing any viewpoint about the treatment to their patient or to anyone else.”

In addition to the above, the court heard an argument from the US Federal Government’s Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan, who came out in support of Chiles, stating that the Colorado law is “subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.”

During the question portions of the hearing, many of the conservative justices pushed back against the state’s law, with Justice Samuel Alito expressing concern that it was “blatant viewpoint discrimination.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett also posed the question of whether states can “pick a side” regarding the standard of care.

In response to Barrett’s question, Stevenson said: “The state can show we’re regulating a treatment and we’re regulating consistent with the standard of care. There is a confirmation, a security that the court can have that there is no other motive going to suppress viewpoints or expression.”

While addressing Campbell’s argument, liberal Justice Sotomayor described Chiles vs Salazar as “an unusual case,” citing that there has been no enforcement of Colorado’s law within the last six years.

She also pointed out that state officials did not consider Chiles’ faith-based counselling as a violation of the state’s ban before adding: “So how does that fit into being an imminent threat of prosecution? Yes, you have an argument; they’ve disavowed it. How does that give you standing?

In response, Campbell said he didn’t believe Colorado officials have disavowed enforcement, alleging that “the state was relying on a misreading of the allegations in the case to say there’s no standing.”

He also claimed that several anonymous complaints have been filed against his client, alleging that the state is now investigating them for violating the conversion therapy ban.

During a post-hearing press conference, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser told reporters: “This practice is harmful – it’s been banned on bipartisan basis in Colorado and many other states. It tells young people that who they are is not OK, leaving lasting harm.”

Weiser also pushed back on Campbell’s claim that the state was investigating Chiles, revealing that “there have been no official proceedings or efforts to take any action against the petitioner.”

In the wake of the hearing, an array of LGBTQIA+ activists and organisations have slammed the attempt to reverse Colorado’s conversion therapy ban, including Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson.

“So-called ‘conversion therapy is not therapy, it is an abusive, discredited pseudoscience rooted in shame, rejection and fear. It often resorts to guilt, coercion and trauma in a disturbing effort to make someone believe they are less than simply because of who they are,” she said.

“These appalling practices can destroy families, worsen mental health outcomes and rob people of their faith communities. Laws like Colorado’s are crucial in ensuring that parents can trust licensed mental health professionals to keep youth safe, supported and able to get the care they need without fear of judgment or bias.”

The Supreme Court is expected to reach a decision in Chiles v Salazar in June 2026.

To listen to the full 90-minute hearing, click here.

Oct. 7 (UPI) — The Supreme Court‘s conservative justices signaled Tuesday they were likely to side with a Christian therapist who argued that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy violates her free speech rights.

The case stems from a lawsuit by Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor whose practice is based in Christianity who says the Colorado law prevents her from assisting her minor clients who seek “to live a life consistent with their faith.”

Conversion therapy can include psychological, behavioral, physical and faith-based practices that are intended to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identification. Opponents point to evidence that it is harmful and leads to more serious psychological problems for people who experience it. Roughly half of states have banned it.

However, the court’s justices argued whether the conversion therapy banned by Colorado’s law is harmful to minors and if it was a violation of the Constitution’s free speech protections or regulation of medical treatment.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that Colorado’s law would mean different treatment for an adolescent male who approaches a licensed therapist hoping to lessen his attraction for other males versus another adolescent male who wants to feel something different.

“It looks like blatant viewpoint discrimination,” he said.

Colorado is one of 23 states that ban conversion therapy, which is the practice of attempting to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity through therapy.

Critics call the technique a pseudoscience, and the American Psychological Association and several other mental health and LGBTQIA+ organizations have come out in opposition to its use.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said a Supreme Court ruling striking down Colorado’s law could imperil not only efforts to prevent conversion therapy but other healthcare treatments that medical experts say are harmful or ineffective.

“For centuries, states have regulated professional healthcare to protect patients from substandard treatment,” he said, according to NBC News. “Throughout that time, the First Amendment has never barred states’ ability to prohibit substandard care, regardless of whether it is carried out through words.”

James Campbell, the lawyer for Chiles argued that the studies showing the harms of conversation therapy are flawed because they lump together voluntary conversations between a client and therapist with coercive measures, like shock therapy.

Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal firm, is representing Chiles in the case.

Shannon Stevenson, the state’s solicitor general, argued that the harm in conversion therapy “comes from telling someone there’s something innate about yourself you can change.”

“Then you spend all kinds of time and effort trying to do that,” she said. “And you fail, but you bore the burden.

A lower court ruling said the Colorado law is a restriction on mental health treatment, not on speech. In a ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, justices said the ban aligned with medical consensus that conversion therapy is “ineffective and harmful” and “rationally serves” the interests of the state in protecting minors.

Stevenson reiterated that argument saying that “Colorado’s law regulates treatments only and because it enforces the professional standard of care,” not speech.

However, conservative members of the court didn’t seem to buy that argument.

“Just because they’re engaged in conduct doesn’t mean that their words aren’t protected,” Chief Justice John Roberts said.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the court’s liberals, brought up how the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. She asked if Colorado’s law wasn’t just the functional equivalent” of Tennessee’s law.

“I realized that there were two different constitutional provisions at issue, but the regulations work in basically the same way, and the question of scrutiny applies in both contexts,” she said. “So it just seems odd to me that we might have a different result here.”

Hashim Mooppan, a principal deputy solicitor general representing the Trump administration, argued that Tennessee’s law concerned drugs and medical treatment while Colorado’s law was focused on what is said during talk therapy sessions.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices on Tuesday heard a free-speech challenge to state laws against “conversion therapy” and sounded likely to rule the measures violate the 1st Amendment.

California and more than 20 other states have adopted laws to forbid licensed counselors from urging or encouraging gay or transgender teens to change their sexual orientation or gender identity.

They were adopted in reaction to a history of dangerous and discredited practices, including treatments that induced nausea and vomiting or administered electric shocks.

Lawmakers and medical experts said these efforts to “cure” LGBTQ+ teens were cruel and ineffective and caused lasting harm.

But these “talk therapy” laws have been challenged by a number of Christian counselors who believe they can help young people who want to talk about their feelings and their sexual identity.

The court on Tuesday heard an appeal from Kaley Chiles, a counselor from Colorado Springs, Colo. She says she is an evangelical Christian, but does not seek to “cure” young people of a same-sex attraction or change their gender identity.

But she sued, alleging the state law seeks to “censor” her conversations and threatens her with punishment.

She lost before a federal judge and a U.S. appeals court, both of whom said the state has the authority to regulate the practice of medicine and to prevent substandard healthcare.

But the justices, both conservative and liberal, said the Colorado law appeared to violate the 1st Amendment.

“What’s being regulated here is pure speech,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Moreover, he said, the state law enforces a double standard. It would punish a licensed counselor who agrees to talk to a teenage client who wants to “overcome same-sex attractions,” but not if she encourages the teen to accept or affirm those attractions.

Justice Elena Kagan said she too saw a potential 1st Amendment violation. And Justice Sonia Sotomayor said there was less evidence that talk therapy alone has caused real harm.

In defense of the law, Colorado state solicitor Shannon Stevenson said the law applies only to licensed counselors. It does not extend to others, including religious ministers.

The practice of medical care “is a heavily regulated area. A doctor doesn’t have a 1st Amendment right to give wrong advice to patients,” she said.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett and others suggested counselors could still face a medical malpractice lawsuit, even if the court rules the state law violates the 1st Amendment.

Brazilian international Lorena stopped a penalty kick and countrywoman Bia Zaneratto scored to keep the Current perfect at home on Friday night.

The 1-0 victory secured a sixth consecutive win for Kansas City, which remained atop the NWSL standings. The Current (11-2-0) have won all six of their games at CPKC Stadium. Kansas City hasn’t dropped a game at home since a July 2024 loss to Orlando.

With the score tied 0-0, Lorena leapt to her right to parry a spot kick by Angel City forward Alyssa Thompson in the 56th minute. The ball was tipped onto the crossbar before bobbling out for a corner kick.

It was Lorena’s first penalty save and Thompson’s first failed conversion in the NWSL.

Reigning NWSL MVP Temwa Chawinga broke away on a dribble and had her low shot saved by Angel City goalkeeper Angelina Anderson, only for Zaneratto to scoop up the rebound and the tuck the ball away in the 69th minute.

Zaneratto has five goals, tied for the second-most of any Current player behind Chawinga with eight.

Angel City (5-5-3) is winless in its last five games, and has secured one tie and two losses since Alex Straus took over as coach three weeks ago.