Supreme Court sides with Christian counselor; CO ban on ‘conversion therapy’ unconstitutional

by WorldTribune Staff / 247 Real News March 31, 2026

In a landmark 8-1 ruling on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a Christian mental health counselor who challenged Colorado’s law which bans gay/trans “conversion therapy.”

Colorado’s law violates the First Amendment, the top court ruled.

Kaley Chiles

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch declared the Colorado law “regulates speech based on viewpoint” by permitting counselors to affirm clients’ gender transitions or identity exploration while prohibiting any efforts to help clients reduce same-sex attractions, change sexual behaviors, or align their gender identity with their biological sex.

Kaley Chiles, a licensed Colorado counselor, argued that the Minor Conversion Therapy Law (MCTL) violated her and her clients’ First Amendment rights to free speech and religious exercise.

Chiles filed suit in federal court in 2022, seeking a preliminary injunction limited to her talk-therapy practice. Both the district court and the Tenth Circuit found she had Article III standing but denied relief, ruling that the law regulated professional conduct and only incidentally burdened speech, so it needed only rational-basis review. Judge Harris Hartz dissented in the Tenth Circuit.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the circuit split, heard argument on Oct. 7, 2025, and issued its 8-1 decision on Tuesday.

The decision reverses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and remands the case for further proceedings consistent with rigorous First Amendment scrutiny.

“Colorado’s law permits her to express acceptance and support for clients exploring their identity or undergoing gender transition,” Gorsuch wrote, “but forbids her from saying anything that attempts to change a client’s ‘sexual orientation or gender identity,’ including efforts to change ‘behaviors,’ ‘gender expressions,’ or ‘romantic attraction[s].’ ”

Gorsuch emphasized that speech does not lose constitutional protection merely because the government labels it “treatment” or “therapeutic modality. The First Amendment is no word game,” the opinion states, citing NAACP v. Button (1963).

The lone dissent came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who wrote that the decision “opens a dangerous can of worms” that “threatens to impair states’ ability to regulate the provision of medical care in any respect.”


2026 Contract With Our Readers