Supreme Court Reviews Legality of Treatment Regulation for LGBTQ Youth
The United States Supreme Court is currently scrutinizing a law that restricts what licensed counselors can say to young individuals grappling with their sexual orientation or gender identity. The judges' primary concern is whether these limitations infringe on First Amendment rights.
Details of the Controversial Law
The law in question originates from Colorado and was implemented in 2019. It prohibits what is commonly referred to as "conversion therapy" for minors. This practice attempts to alter an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity through conversation-based therapy.
Under the law, state-licensed therapists are forbidden from trying to "modify behaviors or gender expressions" or attempting to "eliminate or reduce" same-sex attraction during their sessions. However, the law permits these professionals to provide "acceptance, support, and understanding" as the child grows.
Those who fail to adhere to these guidelines risk a hefty $5000 fine and the potential revocation of their license.
Colorado is not alone in this approach, as 26 other states have also put similar restrictions in place. The decision has been widely supported on both sides of the political aisle due to the consensus among medical and mental health professionals that conversion therapy is ineffective and could cause harm.
The Challenge against the Law
The legal challenge comes from Kaley Chiles, a Christian licensed therapist based in Colorado Springs. She alleges that the law infringes on her free speech rights and hinders her ability to openly discuss with clients their wishes to eliminate same-sex attractions or align more closely with their biological sex.
The case also raises questions about parents' rights to seek mental health care for their children during puberty, along with the rights of LGBTQ youth to seek greater societal acceptance.
The Supreme Court's Deliberations
Despite the law being in effect for over half a decade, no counselor has faced disciplinary action or fines from the state for allegedly engaging in banned treatment practices. However, Chiles argues that the law has had a discouraging effect.
Colorado defends the law as a justifiable regulation of medical treatment, aligning with a widely recognized standard of care. The state argues that any impact on a licensed counselor’s speech is merely incidental.
The judges' reactions were mixed, with some expressing concern over the state’s argument. They questioned whether there was a distinction between medical practice, which can be regulated, and conversation-based therapy, which they viewed as professional speech.
Questions were also raised about the role of science in this debate, with some judges questioning whether sufficient evidence exists to prove that talk therapy aimed at helping young people change their identities is harmful.
Possible Outcomes of the Case
If the majority of the judges believe that the First Amendment extends to talk therapy, they may send the case back to a lower court to further examine if there is enough evidence to support the state’s goal of protecting children by limiting "conversion therapy."
Alternatively, the court could decide to answer this question by itself and resolve the case conclusively. The court is expected to deliver its verdict by the end of June 2026.