![\"The](\"https:\/\/missouriindependent.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/conversion-therapy-SCOTUS.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday is scheduled to hear oral arguments in a case that could impact state laws around the country that ban \u201cconversion therapy,\u201d a controversial counseling practice for LGBTQ+ youth (Anna Moneymaker\/Getty Images).<\/p>\n
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday is scheduled to hear oral arguments in a case that could reverse or solidify state laws across the country that ban a controversial counseling practice for LGBTQ+ youth.<\/p>\n
The case challenges a 2019 Colorado law that bans \u201cconversion therapy\u201d for children and teens. Conversion therapy is a catchall term for efforts to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBTQ+ people. Sometimes called \u201creparative therapy,\u201d it can range from talk therapy and religious counseling to electrical shocks<\/a>, pain-inducing aversion therapy<\/a> and physical isolation<\/a>. The therapy has been widely discredited by medical groups.<\/p>\n More than half of states<\/a> \u2014 including some led by Republicans \u2014 have banned or restricted the practice for children and teens since California became the first to do so in 2012, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a left-leaning nonprofit research organization that tracks LGBTQ+-related laws and policies.<\/p>\n In recent years, however, Republicans in several states have worked to reverse bans, with some success. A poll<\/a> in June by Data for Progress, a liberal think tank, found that although less than half of Republican voters, 43%, support or strongly support conversion therapy, more than half \u2014 56% \u2014 said the Supreme Court ought to allow states to ban it.<\/p>\n A decision in the Colorado case, expected next year, could have far-reaching ramifications\u00a0for dozens of other states.<\/p>\n \u201cI think we\u2019re all really worried about the implications,\u201d said Cliff Rosky, a professor of law at the University of Utah. Rosky helped draft Utah\u2019s 2023 law<\/a> prohibiting licensed professionals from practicing conversion therapy on LGBTQ+ youth. That measure unanimously passed<\/a> the Republican-controlled legislature.<\/p>\n \u201cWe certainly hope the court will uphold the right of states to regulate the behavior of therapists that it licenses and protect children from a lethal public health threat,\u201d he told Stateline.<\/p>\n The impact on other states\u2019 laws would depend on the scope of the high court\u2019s ruling. But most of those laws are similar to Colorado\u2019s, Rosky said.<\/p>\n \u201cCertainly, a broad ruling against Colorado\u2019s law would jeopardize the constitutionality of all the other laws.\u201d<\/p>\n In Chiles v. Salazar, a licensed counselor in Colorado Springs, Kaley Chiles, sued state officials<\/a> in 2022 over a law that bars licensed mental health professionals from conducting conversion therapy on clients under 18. She argues the law violates her First Amendment right to free speech and interferes with her ability to practice counseling in a way that aligns with her religious convictions. Chiles is represented by conservative religious law firm Alliance Defending Freedom.<\/p>\n \u201cThe government has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors,\u201d Jim Campbell, chief legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, said<\/a> in a news release when the group filed its opening brief in June. \u201cColorado\u2019s law harms these young people by depriving them of caring and compassionate conversations with a counselor who helps them pursue the goals they desire.\u201d<\/p>\n Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, said in an August news conference<\/a> that the law doesn\u2019t prohibit a provider from sharing information or viewpoints with a patient, and that therapists are still allowed to talk with patients about conversion practices offered by religious groups.<\/p>\n But he called<\/a> conversion therapy a \u201csubstandard, discredited practice.\u201d Conversion therapy has been denounced by major medical organizations including the American Medical Association<\/a>, the American Psychological Association<\/a>, the American Psychiatric Association<\/a> and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cThis practice has been used in the past to try to force patients to change their sexual orientation or their gender identity,\u201d Weiser said. \u201cThe science, however, says that this practice is harmful. It doesn\u2019t work.<\/p>\n \u201cRegardless of how it\u2019s performed, there can be real harms from this practice. And those harms can include depression, self-hatred, loss of faith, even suicide.\u201d<\/p>\n The key question in the case is whether Colorado\u2019s law regulates professional standards of conduct and speech, or whether it attempts to regulate the right to free speech, said Marie-Am\u00e9lie George, a legal historian who has published extensively on LGBTQ+ rights and is a professor of law at Wake Forest University School of Law.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat is really interesting about these laws is that most licensed health professionals don\u2019t offer conversion therapy because professional associations across the board have condemned it as extremely harmful,\u201d George told Stateline. After the mainstream mental health community disavowed efforts to change people\u2019s sexual orientation by the late 1980s, conversion therapy \u201cbecame primarily the province of religious and lay ministers,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n State laws like Colorado\u2019s don\u2019t restrict clergy and lay ministers from engaging in conversion therapy, she said. They address only the small subset of state-licensed mental health professionals who wish to use it.<\/p>\n In August, attorneys general in 20 states and the District of Columbia filed an amicus brief supporting Colorado\u2019s law<\/a>. They argue the First Amendment doesn\u2019t shield mental health practices from regulation when the state deems them dangerous or ineffective, and that states have a long and established history of regulating professional standards of care.<\/p>\n The decision in this case will probably affect all of the conversion therapy bans in this country.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u2013 Marie-Am\u00e9lie George, Wake Forest University School of Law professor<\/b><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Colorado isn\u2019t the only recent battleground over conversion therapy, as conservative majorities in the courts, state legislatures and at the federal level have opened the door for Republican lawmakers and conservative Christian groups to reinstate the practice.<\/p>\n Earlier this year, Kentucky\u2019s Republican-controlled legislature passed a bill<\/a> canceling Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear\u2019s 2024 executive order<\/a> that banned conversion therapy for minors. Beshear promptly vetoed the bill, but the legislature overrode his veto<\/a> in March.<\/p>\n In April, a coalition of Republican attorneys general from 11 states, led by Iowa and South Carolina, appealed<\/a> a January decision by a U.S. district court judge to uphold a 2023 Michigan law<\/a> that\u2019s similar to Colorado\u2019s. It prohibits mental health professionals from trying to alter a minor\u2019s sexual orientation or gender identity. The case began when Catholic Charities of three Michigan counties filed a lawsuit targeting Michigan\u2019s law in 2024<\/a> on behalf of a licensed therapist.<\/p>\n In July, a Virginia court partially struck down the state\u2019s 2020 ban on conversion therapy for minors. Republican lawmakers in Michigan introduced a bill<\/a> in July to repeal their state\u2019s ban,\u00a0while Missouri\u2019s Republican attorney general sued<\/a> to overturn local conversion therapy bans.<\/p>\n From the mid-1990s until the mid-2010s, LGBTQ+ rights advocates won a lot of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, said George, the Wake Forest professor.<\/p>\n \u201cBut in the years since, the Supreme Court has been more hostile to LGBTQ+ rights claims,\u201d she said. \u201cI think, with the political environment of the court, it will be interesting to see what they do given how they have treated other LGBTQ+ rights cases in recent years.<\/p>\n \u201cStates are extremely similar in the laws they have enacted, so the decision in this case will probably affect all of the conversion therapy bans in this country.\u201d<\/p>\n Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n