Is Conversion Therapy a Protected Form of Speech? The Supreme Court Thinks It Might Be

  What this decision could mean for therapy, free speech and democracy.

by Lily Smith ★ November 10th, 2025

Design by: Carly Klonsky

On Oct. 7, the Supreme Court appeared to lean towards the argument of Christian therapist Kaley Chiles, who is challenging a Colorado law banning conversion therapy for minors. Chiles argues that the law violates her First Amendment right to free speech.

According to the American Psychological Association, conversion therapy refers to “attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or related behaviors.” The practice is rooted in the belief that being LGBTQIAP+ is a mental disorder that must be “cured” — an idea widely discredited by medical professionals.

James Campbell, the lawyer representing Chiles, explained that the therapy she wishes to provide is talk therapy, a conversational form of conversion therapy that does not involve any physical restraints or threats. Campbell argues that Colorado’s law prevents Chiles from offering this therapy even to minors who voluntarily seek it, effectively “silencing” her. Campbell also contends that the ban denies families and children access to the kind of counseling they desire.

Chiles has refrained from practicing this form of therapy in fear of violating Colorado's law. Under the current statute, counselors who do practice conversion therapy face potential penalties, including the loss of their professional licenses and fines of up to $5,000. So far, the state has not prosecuted anyone under the ban. Still, the Court’s ruling could have nationwide implications, as more than 20 states currently enforce similar prohibitions on conversion therapy.

In this case, the question for the Supreme Court to decide is whether Colorado’s law is an appropriate regulation of professional conduct, or an infraction on free speech. The Court’s conservative majority are seemingly in favor of the latter argument. In a discussion with Colorado’s solicitor general Shannon Stevenson, Justice Samuel Alito Jr. stated that the law “looks like blatant viewpoint discrimination,” which is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution’s First Amendment.

According to NPR, every major medical organization in the United States has condemned conversion therapy, linking it to increased rates of anxiety, depression and suicidal ideation among minors specifically. In support of Colorado’s law, the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and 12 other reputable medical organizations filed an amicus brief outlining both the scientific and ethical basis for banning the practice. The brief presents extensive evidence showing that conversion therapy is ineffective and potentially dangerous, reinforcing the state’s justification for restricting it.

However, most of these justices are seemingly ignoring this medical perspective. For example, liberal SCOTUS Justice Elena Kagan said, “Let’s just assume that we’re in normal free-speech land rather than in this kind of doctor land.” Kagan also gave the example that if a mental health professional who aims to help a patient accept their sexuality is permissable, but another who wants to help their patient change their sexual orientation is not, “that seems like viewpoint discrimination."

The question that you might be asking is this: how will this eventual decision impact therapy in the US? Lawyers representing the state of Colorado claim that if Chile wins, this case would take away the ability of states to make sure that mental health professionals are meeting standards of care, and would significantly weaken healthcare regulations. On the other hand, supporters of Chiles believe that her win would represent an exoneration from the bars of oppressed speech, and would only help people with gender identity struggles. 

One thing is for certain: if the Court votes in favor of Chiles, this decision will legalize conversion therapy in states where it remains banned. And it might be too soon to know the full scope of those consequences. So, now is the time for you to decide – is conversion therapy free speech, or should it be regulated? The Court is expected to make a decision on Chiles v. Salazar by the end of their term in late June.

Edited by: Kacie Moschella