Supreme Court Decides for Therapist in "Conversion Therapy" Case

[martybegan]

A narrow opinion in the case, Chiles V. Salazar where a therapist challenged her talk therapy being considered conversion therapy. The court sent it back to the district court and told them to apply strict scrutiny as per the 1st amendment. 9-1 decision with only Jackson dissenting.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-539_fd9g.pdf

Held: Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy, as applied to Ms. Chiles’s talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint, and the lower courts erred by failing to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny. Pp. 7–23

 

[Hafar1014]

A narrow opinion in the case, Chiles V. Salazar where a therapist challenged her talk therapy being considered conversion therapy. The court sent it back to the district court and told them to apply strict scrutiny as per the 1st amendment. 9-1 decision with only Jackson dissenting.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-539_fd9g.pdf

This is a terrible ruling. It means that conversion therapy which is banned by the APA and regarded as unethical means this harmful therapy can be used to try and convert homosexuals to heterosexual. It reverses the 1974 decision by the DSM that being gay is not a mental disorder.

 

[martybegan]

This is a terrible ruling. It means that conversion therapy which is banned by the APA and regarded as unethical means this harmful therapy can be used to try and convert homosexuals to heterosexual. It reverses the 1974 decision by the DSM that being gay is not a mental disorder.

No, it doesn't. It's limited to talk therapy about someone questioning their sexuality. The laws were written too broadly and some therapists believe that by the law once a person questions their sexuality, the only answer allowed by these laws is "you are gay"

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This is a terrible ruling. It means that conversion therapy which is banned by the APA and regarded as unethical means this harmful therapy can be used to try and convert homosexuals to heterosexual. It reverses the 1974 decision by the DSM that being gay is not a mental disorder.

That's not even close to true. The ruling actually separates merely talking about homosexuality from other forms of conversion therapy. Such discussions may be prohibited but the strict scrutiny test must be applied. Conversion therapy bans have not been overturned.

 

[ColonelAngus]

The craziest thing is in blue states where the GOVERNMENT will hide transition therapy from parents.

The government wants to FORCE you to allow your 8 year old boy to become a girl.

Just bananas.

 

[JGalt]

A narrow opinion in the case, Chiles V. Salazar where a therapist challenged her talk therapy being considered conversion therapy. The court sent it back to the district court and told them to apply strict scrutiny as per the 1st amendment. 9-1 decision with only Jackson dissenting.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-539_fd9g.pdf

So now this licensed counselor has a "First Amendment right" to convince kids their gender is wrong with his "talk therapy." That sounds like some weird form of homosexual grooming.

 

[Hafar1014]

That's not even close to true. The ruling actually separates merely talking about homosexuality from other forms of conversion therapy. Such discussions may be prohibited but the strict scrutiny test must be applied. Conversion therapy bans have not been overturned.

Its worse
Key Aspects of the Ruling:

• The Case: Chiles v. Colorado involved an evangelical counselor arguing the 2019 ban (which prohibits licensed therapists from attempting to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity) violated her free speech by limiting her ability to provide counseling aligned with her faith.
• Court's Reasoning: Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, indicated the law "censors speech based on viewpoint," noting the First Amendment protects against enforcing orthodox thought or speech.
• Impact: While not immediately overturning all state laws, the ruling dictates that such bans must meet the highest form of judicial scrutiny, making them difficult to enforce.
• Dissent: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
  The New York Times +2

This ruling marks a significant legal setback for LGBTQ advocates who argue that conversion therapy is a harmful and discredited practice.
GLAAD +1

 

[Hafar1014]

No, it doesn't. It's limited to talk therapy about someone questioning their sexuality. The laws were written too broadly and some therapists believe that by the law once a person questions their sexuality, the only answer allowed by these laws is "you are gay"

It allows mal practice and it violates the APA ethical standards. Your understanding is flawed. I am a psychotherapist. Conversion theory cant work and harms patients. Gender affirming care is child abuse. The first ethic is do no harm. Therapy isnt based on religion its based on science.

Key Aspects of the Ruling:

• The Case: Chiles v. Colorado involved an evangelical counselor arguing the 2019 ban (which prohibits licensed therapists from attempting to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity) violated her free speech by limiting her ability to provide counseling aligned with her faith.
• Court's Reasoning: Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, indicated the law "censors speech based on viewpoint," noting the First Amendment protects against enforcing orthodox thought or speech.
• Impact: While not immediately overturning all state laws, the ruling dictates that such bans must meet the highest form of judicial scrutiny, making them difficult to enforce.
• Dissent: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
  The New York Times +2

This ruling marks a significant legal setback for LGBTQ advocates who argue that conversion therapy is a harmful and discredited practice.
GLAAD +1

 

[martybegan]

So now this licensed counselor has a "First Amendment right" to convince kids their gender is wrong with his "talk therapy." That sounds like some weird form of homosexual grooming.

Actually the therapist was concerned that unless they just affirmed the child's confusion by saying "you are gay" automatically, they would fall afoul of the law.

The problem is the law assumed one viewpoint only, once a child questions their sexuality, they have to be gay, or at least bisexual.

 

[martybegan]

It allows mal practice and it violates the APA ethical standards. Your understanding is flawed. I am a psychotherapist. Conversion theory cant work and harms patients. Gender affirming care is child abuse. The first ethic is do no harm. Therapy isnt based on religion its based on science.

Key Aspects of the Ruling:

• The Case: Chiles v. Colorado involved an evangelical counselor arguing the 2019 ban (which prohibits licensed therapists from attempting to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity) violated her free speech by limiting her ability to provide counseling aligned with her faith.
• Court's Reasoning: Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, indicated the law "censors speech based on viewpoint," noting the First Amendment protects against enforcing orthodox thought or speech.
• Impact: While not immediately overturning all state laws, the ruling dictates that such bans must meet the highest form of judicial scrutiny, making them difficult to enforce.
• Dissent: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
  The New York Times +2

This ruling marks a significant legal setback for LGBTQ advocates who argue that conversion therapy is a harmful and discredited practice.
GLAAD +1

No, it doesn't. The law was overly broad and made the only viable outcome of any therapy "you are gay"

 

[struth]

Its worse
Key Aspects of the Ruling:

• The Case: Chiles v. Colorado involved an evangelical counselor arguing the 2019 ban (which prohibits licensed therapists from attempting to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity) violated her free speech by limiting her ability to provide counseling aligned with her faith.
• Court's Reasoning: Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, indicated the law "censors speech based on viewpoint," noting the First Amendment protects against enforcing orthodox thought or speech.
• Impact: While not immediately overturning all state laws, the ruling dictates that such bans must meet the highest form of judicial scrutiny, making them difficult to enforce.
• Dissent: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
  The New York Times +2

This ruling marks a significant legal setback for LGBTQ advocates who argue that conversion therapy is a harmful and discredited practice.
GLAAD +1

Free speech trumps your feelings

 

[SeaMajor7]

If homo/trans drama fatigue isn't a thing, it is now.

 

[JGalt]

No, it doesn't. The law was overly broad and made the only viable outcome of any therapy "you are gay"

Apparently the therapist is a Christian counselor, so he's attempting to change their perceives gender from gay to straight...

"AI Overview"

"In a 8-1 decision on March 31, 2026, the US Supreme Court ruled in Chiles v. Salazar (Docket No. 24-539) that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors, as applied to a Christian counselor’s talk therapy, likely violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The Court held that the law regulates speech based on viewpoint rather than just professional conduct, requiring lower courts to apply strict scrutiny, effectively jeopardizing similar bans across 23 states.
Key Aspects of the Ruling:

• Context: The case was brought by Kaley Chiles, a licensed mental health professional who argued that Colorado's 2019 ban on "conversion therapy" (or "reparative therapy") for minors violated her right to freely discuss and provide counseling on sexual orientation and gender identity.
• Majority Opinion: Written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court found the law restricts free speech, holding that "the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech". The ruling determined the law was not mere regulation of professional conduct, as it targeted the content of conversations.
• Impact: The ruling reverses the lower court decision and remands it for reconsideration under "strict scrutiny," the highest form of judicial review, making the ban very unlikely to stand.
• Dissent: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing that the majority failed to appreciate that the law regulates medical professional conduct rather than public speech, and that this ruling allows "therapeutic harm to children".
• Conclusion: The ruling does not completely strike down the law immediately but creates a high legal bar that makes it difficult to prohibit licensed therapists from using "talk therapy" to attempt to change a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity.

The ruling is seen as a major legal victory for religious freedom proponents and a significant setback for LGBTQ+ rights advocates, who cite research that conversion therapy causes significant harm to youth."

 

[martybegan]

Apparently the therapist is a Christian counselor, so he's attempting to change their perceives gender from gay to straight...

"AI Overview"

"In a 8-1 decision on March 31, 2026, the US Supreme Court ruled in Chiles v. Salazar (Docket No. 24-539) that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors, as applied to a Christian counselor’s talk therapy, likely violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The Court held that the law regulates speech based on viewpoint rather than just professional conduct, requiring lower courts to apply strict scrutiny, effectively jeopardizing similar bans across 23 states.
Key Aspects of the Ruling:

• Context: The case was brought by Kaley Chiles, a licensed mental health professional who argued that Colorado's 2019 ban on "conversion therapy" (or "reparative therapy") for minors violated her right to freely discuss and provide counseling on sexual orientation and gender identity.
• Majority Opinion: Written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court found the law restricts free speech, holding that "the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech". The ruling determined the law was not mere regulation of professional conduct, as it targeted the content of conversations.
• Impact: The ruling reverses the lower court decision and remands it for reconsideration under "strict scrutiny," the highest form of judicial review, making the ban very unlikely to stand.
• Dissent: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing that the majority failed to appreciate that the law regulates medical professional conduct rather than public speech, and that this ruling allows "therapeutic harm to children".
• Conclusion: The ruling does not completely strike down the law immediately but creates a high legal bar that makes it difficult to prohibit licensed therapists from using "talk therapy" to attempt to change a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity.

The ruling is seen as a major legal victory for religious freedom proponents and a significant setback for LGBTQ+ rights advocates, who cite research that conversion therapy causes significant harm to youth."

It's tailored specifically for talk therapy, and notes it doesn't apply to physical methods, which can still be banned by law as per the State's wishes.

 

[Rawley]

It allows mal practice and it violates the APA ethical standards. Your understanding is flawed. I am a psychotherapist. Conversion theory cant work and harms patients. Gender affirming care is child abuse. The first ethic is do no harm. Therapy isnt based on religion its based on science.

Well, science says boys cannot become girls. If a therapist has a twelve year old patient that has been convinced he's a girl trapped in a boy's body, you're saying it's harmful to talk this kid off the ledge and deal with the reality that he's a boy?

 

[Cassandro]

The Colorado law seems poorly written and invites First Amendment challenges, but it does address the issue of "talk therapy." What are the professional guidelines for this activity, and who pays for it?

 

[Hafar1014]

Well, science says boys cannot become girls. If a therapist has a twelve year old patient that has been convinced he's a girl trapped in a boy's body, you're saying it's harmful to talk this kid off the ledge and deal with the reality that he's a boy?

No I stated the opposite. You dont support the delusion. The approach would be to first discover the source of the problem which is often a trauma personality disorder or emotional disturbance. Then by asking questions try and have them see the connection. Then the premorbid problem must be resolved. Often its family problem as well. This is also socially contagious so supporting it spreads it.

 

[Rawley]

No I stated the opposite. You dont support the delusion. The approach would be to first discover the source of the problem which is often a trauma personality disorder or emotional disturbance. Then by asking questions try and have them see the connection. Then the premorbid problem must be resolved. Often its family problem as well. This is also socially contagious so supporting it spreads it.

Then I'm confused by your comments. You say "It allows mal practice and it violates the APA ethical standards. Your understanding is flawed. I am a psychotherapist. Conversion theory cant work and harms patients."

Talking the 12 year old boy out of his delusion that he's a girl is considered "conversion therapy" under this CO law.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Its worse
Key Aspects of the Ruling:

• The Case: Chiles v. Colorado involved an evangelical counselor arguing the 2019 ban (which prohibits licensed therapists from attempting to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity) violated her free speech by limiting her ability to provide counseling aligned with her faith.
• Court's Reasoning: Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, indicated the law "censors speech based on viewpoint," noting the First Amendment protects against enforcing orthodox thought or speech.
• Impact: While not immediately overturning all state laws, the ruling dictates that such bans must meet the highest form of judicial scrutiny, making them difficult to enforce.
• Dissent: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
  The New York Times +2

This ruling marks a significant legal setback for LGBTQ advocates who argue that conversion therapy is a harmful and discredited practice.
GLAAD +1

It sets a distinction between merely discussing orientation and other forms of coercive therapy. Speech of another viewpoint has first amendment protection.

 

[Winco]

The government wants to FORCE you to allow your 8 year old boy to become a girl.

Do you have ANY documented cases of an 8 year old that had this transition with ANY parent consent or knowledge.

Now, I agree this whole thing is crazy, but you also shouldn't believe trumps lies that lie Johnny can leave for school a boy and return a girl. Same Day.



It is total BS.