What Colorado Families Need to Know About Today’s Supreme Court Ruling on Conversion Therapy

On March 31, 2026, the United States Supreme Court struck down Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors in Chiles v. Salazar. The 8-1 decision has immediate implications not only for Colorado families, but for the nearly thirty states with similar laws.

What the Court Decided

The case was brought by Kaley Chiles, a Colorado Springs licensed professional counselor represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, who argued that the state’s 2019 Minor Conversion Therapy Law violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise, by restricting what she could say to minor clients in talk therapy sessions.

Writing for an 8-1 majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch agreed with Chiles. The Court held that because conversion therapy in Chiles’ practice takes the form of verbal counseling, not a medical procedure or physical intervention, Colorado’s ban effectively regulated speech based on its content and viewpoint. Under First Amendment doctrine, laws that restrict speech based on viewpoint face an extremely high legal bar known as strict scrutiny, and Colorado’s law did not clear it.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only dissenter. She argued that states have historically been permitted to regulate the professional conduct of licensed healthcare providers, even when that conduct involves speech, and that the majority’s reasoning could have far-reaching consequences for other forms of medical regulation.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The Court did not conclude that conversion therapy is safe or effective. In fact, the practice has been formally rejected by every major medical organization in the United States, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, as both ineffective and harmful. Research has consistently linked it to increased emotional and mental health problems including anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation in minors.

The Court also did not rule on conversion therapy as applied to non-talk-therapy interventions, which Chiles herself condemns, nor did it address the practices of religious organizations or family members, which were already excluded from Colorado’s law.

What the Court decided was a far narrower constitutional question: that a state cannot prohibit a licensed counselor from expressing a particular viewpoint during talk therapy sessions with a consenting client.

What This Means for Colorado

Effective immediately, Colorado’s 2019 ban is now unenforceable. Licensed mental health professionals in the state who were previously prohibited from providing conversion therapy to minors are no longer subject to restriction under state law.

Although the Colorado legislature may attempt to craft a new law that effectively addresses the First Amendment concerns identified by the Court, any such effort will face significant constitutional scrutiny.

The ruling also calls into question similar bans in twenty-seven states plus DC and Puerto Rico, potentially creating legal challenges to those laws in the coming months.

What Families Should Know

For parents of LGBTQ+ minors and the 20.2% of Coloradoans under 30 who identify as LGBTQ+, this ruling may understandably feel alarming, but here are a few things worth keeping in mind:

• The ruling does not mandate anyone to seek out or submit to conversion therapy; it removes a state-level prohibition on licensed providers offering it to clients who want it.
• Under Colorado law (C.R.S. § 12-245-203.5), minors over the age of twelve can consent to outpatient psychotherapy services on their own, without a parent or guardian’s knowledge or approval. In a post-Chiles landscape, this means a child as young as twelve could independently seek out and consent to conversion therapy, without a parent ever being notified. The only requirement for therapists is to encourage the minor to involve their parents, not to do so. This is particularly troubling given that minors may consent to treatment without fully understanding its risks. Research from the Trevor Project finds that LGBTQ+ youth who undergo conversion therapy are significantly more likely to attempt suicide than those who do not. This is potential harm that minors, whose capacity to evaluate long-term psychological risk is still developing, may not be able to fully grasp when giving consent. For parents with concerns about a child’s therapeutic care, this is a critical gap that in some cases, should be proactively addressed through a parenting plan.
• For families in shared custody arrangements, questions about a child’s mental health treatment, including which providers to see and what approaches are used, can be contentious. Colorado courts evaluate these disputes through the lens of the child’s best interests. If you have concerns about therapeutic decisions being made for your child, speaking with a family law attorney can help you understand your rights and options.

Looking Ahead

Chiles v. Salazar spans constitutional law, healthcare regulation, and the rights of LGBTQ+ youth. The decision’s full impact will unfold over time, as state legislatures respond, lower courts apply its holdings to new cases, and families navigate the new reality.

McConaughy & Sarkissian will continue to monitor developments in this area of the law. If you have questions about how this ruling may affect your family or your custody arrangement, we encourage you to contact our office.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance specific to your situation, please consult a qualified family law attorney.