On Tuesday, a significant portion of the Supreme Court expressed skepticism regarding Colorado’s legislation banning conversion therapy for minors, as reported in SCOTUSblog. The law, enacted in 2019, restricts mental health professionals from offering therapy aimed at altering a young person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, in response to concerns about mental health crises among teens linked to such treatments.
This case, Chiles v. Salazar, centers on Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor, who argues that the ban infringes on her free speech rights due to its restriction on her therapeutic communications. Represented by attorney James Campbell, Chiles’ legal team urged the court to deem the law unconstitutional, positing that it suppresses speech and could lead to broader implications for counselors advocating for statutorily unpopular goals related to gender and sexuality.
Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan, reflecting the Trump administration’s stance, reinforced the argument that the legislation unlawfully regulates a category of medical treatment—namely talk therapy—that is predominantly speech-oriented.
Conversely, Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson defended the statute, emphasizing its bipartisan support across 25 states. Stevenson contended that the law precisely targets a therapeutic practice with acknowledged risks, leaving professionals free to express viewpoints absent this specific therapeutic context.
Throughout the proceedings, the justices, including Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, deliberated on notable legal considerations such as the standing of Chiles’ claim given Colorado’s stated non-enforcement of the ban against her type of therapy, and the conventional regulation of medical treatments. Justice Samuel Alito highlighted concerns about historical instances where ideological motivations overshadowed medical consensus, questioning whether the law could similarly represent an ideological stance against a particular viewpoint.
While some justices appeared open to the idea of returning the case to lower courts for a more thorough constitutional evaluation, a resolution remains pending, with the Supreme Court’s decision anticipated by summer. The ultimate determination will likely delve into whether the law merits strict scrutiny over Chiles’ speech rights or whether the ban constitutes a regulatory measure in line with established medical standards. For further details, the original hearing transcript is accessible here.