The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case from Colorado to determine whether state and local governments can enforce laws banning conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ children.
The conservative-led court’s decision to take up the case comes amid actions by President Donald Trump targeting transgender individuals, including a ban on military service and an end to federal funding for gender-affirming care for transgender minors.
The justices have also heard arguments in a separate Tennessee case concerning whether state bans on treating transgender minors violate the Constitution. However, they have yet to issue a ruling on that matter.
Colorado is among nearly half of the U.S. states that have enacted laws prohibiting conversion therapy—an attempt to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity through counseling.
At the heart of the case is whether such laws infringe upon the free speech rights of counselors. Advocates of these laws argue that they regulate the professional conduct of licensed practitioners rather than restricting speech.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld Colorado’s law, while the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta struck down similar local bans in Florida, leading to conflicting legal precedents.
In 2023, the Supreme Court declined to hear a similar case, despite a split among federal appeals courts on the issue. At the time, Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas indicated they would have reviewed the matter. It takes four justices to grant a review, but the court does not typically disclose voting details at this stage, so it remains unclear who cast the deciding fourth vote.
The case will be argued in the court’s next term, beginning in October.
The appeal was filed on behalf of Kaley Chiles, a counselor in Colorado Springs, by the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, which has frequently represented cases involving high-profile social issues before the court.
Chiles’ lawyers referenced a 2018 Supreme Court ruling, in which the justices decided 5-4 that California could not require state-licensed anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to provide information about abortion. They argued that Chiles does not “seek to ‘cure’ clients of same-sex attractions or to ‘change’ clients’ sexual orientation.”
In defense of Colorado’s law, state attorneys urged the court to reject the appeal, emphasizing that lawmakers acted to regulate professional conduct “based on overwhelming evidence that efforts to change a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity are unsafe and ineffective.”
