The United States Supreme Court issued a decision on the morning of March 31, 2026, which coincided with the worldwide Transgender Day of Visibility. This decision will be debated for years in medical schools, legal publications, and family living rooms. Kaley Chiles, a counselor in Colorado Springs, claimed that the state’s limitations on her talk therapy practice violated her First Amendment right to free speech, and the court overturned Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy by an 8-1 vote. Protesters and supporters had gathered outside the Washington court building, waiting in the cold with signs. When the decision was made, it seemed to be something that everyone had anticipated but wasn’t quite ready to accept.
Since 2022, Chiles, a licensed counselor and devout Christian, has contested Colorado’s legislation, claiming that it forbade her from assisting clients who voluntarily sought to “reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions” in a manner consistent with their religious beliefs. Her attempts to halt the ban’s enforcement had been denied by several lower courts. She continued to make appeals. The Supreme Court consented to hear the case last year. Additionally, observers present at the October 2025 oral arguments observed that a number of justices seemed openly skeptical of the state’s position, indicating that this outcome, though still painful for many, was not wholly unexpected. However, this knowledge does not make it any simpler to comprehend.
Chiles v. Salazar — US Supreme Court Ruling on Conversion Therapy (March 31, 2026)
| Case Name | Chiles v. Salazar — US Supreme Court, decided March 31, 2026 |
| Decision | 8-1 in favor of therapist Kaley Chiles Bans Struck Down |
| Petitioner | Kaley Chiles — licensed counsellor and practising Christian, Colorado Springs, Colorado |
| Chiles’ Argument | Colorado’s ban violated her First Amendment free speech rights by prohibiting talk therapy aimed at reducing same-sex attraction or changing gender identity in willing clients |
| Majority Opinion Author | Justice Neil Gorsuch — ruled Colorado’s law “censors speech based on viewpoint” First Amendment Basis |
| Sole Dissenter | Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — read her dissent aloud in court; argued First Amendment carries “far less salience” for licensed medical professionals |
| Justice Kagan’s Concurrence | Agreed on free speech grounds but noted “mirror image” laws banning gender-affirming therapy would face the same constitutional scrutiny Notable |
| What Colorado’s Law Covered | Banned licensed therapists from practicing conversion therapy on minors; did not apply to religious entities or family members |
| States Affected | More than 20 US states have similar bans — all now potentially vulnerable to legal challenge |
| Medical Consensus | Conversion therapy condemned by the AMA, APA, American Academy of Pediatrics, and all major medical associations — deemed ineffective and harmful |
| Known Harms | Linked to depression, psychological trauma, family breakdown, and increased suicide risk in minors subjected to the practice Documented Harm |
| Practitioners in the US (2023) | More than 1,300 — per Trevor Project report |
| Case History | Chiles filed suit in 2022; multiple lower courts denied her request to pause enforcement; appealed to Supreme Court in 2025; oral arguments heard October 2025 |
| Outcome for Colorado | Case sent back to lower courts; Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser called ruling “wrong” and “a setback for protecting children” |
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, came to the conclusion that Colorado’s law “censors speech based on viewpoint”—that is, it forbade one kind of therapeutic message while permitting another, which the court determined to be unconstitutional. According to Gorsuch, the First Amendment “stands as a bulwark against any effort to prescribe an orthodoxy of views.” Eight of the nine justices ultimately rejected the state’s argument that the law regulated professional conduct rather than speech. Colorado officials and the majority of the medical community watching the case found significance in this distinction. Although the decision returns the case to the lower courts, the constitutional framework it creates has already altered the landscape for laws of a similar nature across the nation. Similar prohibitions on conversion therapy for minors have been passed by more than 20 states. They are all now up against a challenge.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who took the unusual step of reading a synopsis of her opinion aloud from the bench—a gesture that, in Supreme Court practice, denotes profound disagreement rather than routine objection—was the only dissenting opinion. Jackson’s argument addressed the fundamental problem that many medical experts believed was being overlooked: Chiles is not a private citizen expressing her opinions in a public setting.
She works in a regulated professional setting as a licensed healthcare provider in a formal therapeutic relationship with a minor. Jackson wrote, “Chiles is not speaking in the ether; she is providing therapy to minors as a licensed healthcare professional,” noting that licensure already requires these professionals to accept limitations on their practice. She cautioned that the majority’s framework might lead to a broad reduction in the state’s authority to control medical speech, which she called potentially “catastrophic.”
The term “therapy” can be confusing, so it’s important to consider what conversion therapy really entails in practice. The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, among others, have officially denounced the practice, which aims to alter a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, usually in minors. Research has repeatedly shown that it doesn’t accomplish what it says it does and that there are real risks associated with it, including depression, psychological damage, strained family ties, and an increased risk of suicide in young people who participate. These are not theoretical issues. These are recorded, peer-reviewed conclusions gathered over many years of research. It is extremely challenging to classify the practice as solely a speech issue because it directly conflicts with the professional standards that regulate every other facet of a licensed therapist’s work.
As this develops, there is a sense that the way courts view the connection between professional licensing and constitutional protection has changed significantly. Justice Elena Kagan, who agreed with the majority, made a noteworthy observation of her own: under this decision, a “mirror image” law that attempted to outlaw therapy that affirmed a teen’s gender identity would be subject to the same constitutional scrutiny. Regardless of the evidence regarding harm, this symmetry creates a framework in which courts are extremely reluctant to control what licensed therapists say to vulnerable minors. It’s still unclear how this decision will be applied by subordinate courts in the future and whether states will come up with different regulatory strategies that pass First Amendment scrutiny.
The decision was described as “a setback for Colorado’s efforts to protect children and families from harmful and discredited mental health practices” by Attorney General Phil Weiser, who represented Colorado in court.”Jaymes Black, head of the Trevor Project — which reported in 2023 that more than 1,300 practitioners across the country offer conversion therapy — described the decision as” a tragic step backward.
A more limited kind of assurance was provided by GLAD Law’s Polly Crozier, who pointed out that therapists who genuinely cause harm to patients through this practice may still be subject to medical malpractice lawsuits. That might be accurate. Given what the ruling permits in the interim, it is also cold comfort for many families and advocates. The lower courts take up the case again. Under this new constitutional framework, the more general question of what states can do to safeguard minors in a therapeutic setting is still genuinely open.
London Bilingualism's content on health, medicine, and weight loss is solely meant for general educational and informational purposes. This website does not offer any diagnosis, treatment recommendations, or medical advice.
We consistently compile and disseminate the most recent information, findings, and advancements from the medical, health, and weight loss sectors. When content contains opinions, commentary, or viewpoints from professionals, industry leaders, or other people, it is published exactly as it is and reflects those people's opinions rather than London Bilingualism's editorial stance.
We strongly advise all readers to consult a qualified medical professional before acting on any medical, health, dietary, or pharmaceutical information found on this website. Since every person's health situation is different, only a qualified healthcare provider who is familiar with your medical history can offer you advice that is suitable for you.
In a similar vein, any legal, regulatory, or compliance-related information found on this platform is provided solely for informational purposes and should not be used without first obtaining independent legal counsel from a licensed attorney.
You understand and agree that London Bilingualism, its editors, contributors, and affiliated parties are not responsible for any decisions made using the information on this website.
