The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of state and local bans on conversion therapy, a controversial practice aimed at changing an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The case, originating from Colorado, could have significant implications for free speech rights and professional healthcare regulations nationwide.
The lawsuit was filed by Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor, who argues that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy violates her First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion.
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals previously upheld the law, stating that it regulates professional healthcare conduct rather than protected speech. The appellate court stressed that the First Amendment does not exempt healthcare professionals from adhering to recognized standards of care, concluding that states have the authority to prohibit conversion therapy as a harmful and ineffective practice.
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser defended the state’s law, asserting that it is essential for protecting public health and upholding medical standards.
“In Colorado, we are committed to protecting professional standards of care so that no one suffers unscientific and harmful so-called gay conversion therapy,” Weiser stated. “Colorado’s judgment on this is the humane, smart, and appropriate policy, and we’re committed to defending it.”
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case presents an opportunity to establish a binding precedent on the intersection of free speech rights and state regulations of medical practices. Depending on the ruling, the outcome could either reinforce state authority to regulate harmful medical treatments or redefine constitutional protections for professional speech.
The case also comes amid a broader shift in federal policy regarding LGBTQ+ rights. Since his return to office, President Donald Trump has enacted measures restricting access to gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth, blocking federal funding for such treatments.
Additionally, the Trump administration previously faced legal challenges from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, including the Human Rights Campaign and Lambda Legal, after issuing an executive order banning transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military.
With the Supreme Court set to deliberate, the case could shape the future of LGBTQ+ rights, professional healthcare regulations, and the scope of First Amendment protections.
