Supreme Court strikes down Colorado ban on ‘conversion therapy’ for minors
Colorado violated the First Amendment by telling therapists that they could not help young people struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction, the U.S. Supreme Court said in a March 31 ruling. The high court said in an 8-1 decision that Colorado’s law banning “conversion therapy” for minors runs afoul of free speech protections and does not qualify as a “permissible” exception to the First Amendment. “The First Amendment stands as a bulwark against any effort to prescribe an orthodoxy of views, reflecting a belief that each American enjoys an inalienable right to speak his mind and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for finding truth,” the ruling said. “Laws like Colorado’s, which suppress speech based on viewpoint, represent an egregious assault on both commitments,” the justices said. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissent from the ruling.Colorado’s law defined “conversion therapy” as “any practice or treatment” that attempts to change a person’s “sexual orientation or gender identity.”In its ban the state included efforts to change a person’s “behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”Christian counselor Kaley Chiles filed a lawsuit to challenge the ban in 2022, arguing that her clients come to her for faith-based counseling, and some are referred by churches or word of mouth. The lawsuit asserted that the Colorado rule constituted viewpoint discrimination because it expressly permitted therapy that is supportive of gender transitions but prohibited therapy that is rooted in “a religious viewpoint that aligns with [Chiles’] religious beliefs and those of her clients.”In its March 31 ruling, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the decision was a “narrow one,” insofar as it did not address broader prohibitions on “conversion therapy” practices such as “physical interventions.”Chiles herself argued that she “provides only talk therapy” to her clients, the court noted. She said the law “strikes at the heart of the First Amendment’s protections for free speech.”The state’s law “censors speech based on its viewpoint,” the justices said, describing the ban as an “egregious” assault on free speech. “Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety,” the ruling said. “Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same.”In her dissent, Jackson argued that the First Amendment has “far less salience” where medical regulations are concerned.She alleged that the majority opinion was “unprincipled and unworkable” and “will eventually prove untenable.”Jim Campbell, lead attorney with the legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Chiles in the case, said in a press release that the ruling was “a significant win for free speech, common sense, and families desperate to help their children.”“States cannot silence voluntary conversations that help young people seeking to grow comfortable with their bodies,” he said.
about 6 hours ago
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on March 31, 2026, that Colorado's ban on "conversion therapy" for minors violates the First Amendment as applied to talk therapy provided by Christian counselor Kaley Chiles.1 2 3
The decision remands the case to lower courts for review under strict scrutiny, as the law suppresses speech based on viewpoint.1 2
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, emphasizing the First Amendment's protection against enforcing orthodoxy.3
Colorado's 2019 law prohibits licensed providers from offering minors therapy aiming to change sexual orientation or gender identity, while allowing affirmation of transitions.1 2 3
Chiles sued in 2022, arguing her faith-based talk therapy helps clients reduce unwanted attractions or align with their biological sex, without physical interventions.1 2 3
Alliance Defending Freedom represented her, calling the ban one-sided censorship.1 2
Liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor joined the majority, noting the law favors one side of the gender identity debate.1 3
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented alone, arguing states can regulate healthcare speech and warning of unsafe care.1 2 3
The ruling is narrow, addressing only verbal counseling, not broader practices.2
The Colorado Catholic Conference hailed the decision as protecting parental rights and evidence-based care for gender dysphoria in minors.1
Alliance Defending Freedom called it a win for free speech and families.2
LGBTQ+ advocates, like GLAD Law, condemned it, insisting conversion therapy remains harmful and discredited.3
Twenty-three states plus D.C. have similar bans, which may face challenges under this precedent.1 3
Colorado warns of ongoing bills like HB26-1309 that could label such therapy as parental abuse.1
The ruling aligns with recent Court skepticism toward LGBTQ+ regulations favoring certain viewpoints.3
How does the Catholic Church view the legality of conversion therapy?
The Catholic Church has not issued a specific magisterial document directly addressing the legality of conversion therapy (also known as reparative or reorientation therapy), which seeks to modify homosexual attractions toward heterosexuality. However, its teachings on the objective disorder of homosexual inclinations, the call to chastity, and the distinction between orientation and acts—combined with scholarly Catholic analyses citing empirical evidence of therapy's potential efficacy—suggest a principled openness to voluntary therapeutic efforts for those seeking alignment with Church moral anthropology, while emphasizing respect, compassion, and no coercion.
The Church teaches that homosexual inclinations, while not sinful in themselves, are "objectively disordered" and constitute a trial for those experiencing them. Persons with such inclinations must be "accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity," with every sign of "unjust discrimination" avoided. They are called to fulfill God's will through chastity, uniting their difficulties to Christ's Cross.
This framework prioritizes the human person's dignity over reduction to sexual orientation, viewing everyone fundamentally as "the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life." The Church distinguishes sharply between same-sex attraction (not sinful) and same-sex acts (intrinsically disordered, as they close off openness to life and sexual complementarity). Programs or ministries aiding those with same-sex attractions must respect this distinction, providing "competent oversight" to uphold chastity and avoid false compassion that compromises doctrine.
Homosexual persons seeking chaste lives generally do not publicize their orientation, and discrimination concerns arise more from those advocating public approval of acts. The Church opposes "unjust discrimination" but affirms moral disapproval of same-sex conduct as legitimate, not discriminatory.
Catholic philosopher Paul Gondreau, applying Thomistic natural law to human sexuality, argues that homosexual orientation is not immutably fixed in personal identity. He cites psychological studies demonstrating that "clinical therapy, alternatively called reparative or conversion or reorientation therapy, can often modify the homosexual orientation to the point that persons with this orientation can attain a satisfactory heterosexual lifestyle."
Key evidence includes:
Gondreau notes the American Psychological Association's (APA) 2008 admission of no single cause for orientation (no "gay gene") and clients' "right to self-determination," which logically supports therapeutic options for those desiring heterosexual adjustment. The APA deemed reparative therapy unproven but omitted pro-change studies, a gap critics like Scott Hershberger highlight as evidence of bias.
This aligns with Church anthropology: Sexuality is ordered to (heterosexual) marriage per natural law, and change is plausible absent fixed biological determinism.
No provided magisterial source explicitly pronounces on civil legality, as the Church addresses moral theology over state law (save where laws contradict natural law, e.g., mandating acts). However, principles imply:
The Church's opposition to laws equating moral disapproval of acts with discrimination (e.g., ENDA critiques) suggests resistance to statutes banning therapy, which could pathologize desires for chastity/heterosexuality.
In summary, while lacking a direct legal pronouncement, Catholic teaching and aligned scholarship view conversion therapy as morally permissible—and potentially beneficial—when voluntary, ethically conducted, and oriented to chastity/natural law. Bans risk unjustly limiting human flourishing and self-determination, contravening respect for persons. Persons discerning should consult competent spiritual/psychological guidance under pastoral care.