Supreme Court Weighs Colorado’s Ban on Scientifically Discredited ‘Conversion Therapy’

Supreme Court Considers Ban on Scientifically Discredited 'Conversion Therapy'

The U.S. Supreme Court will determine whether Colorado's ban on conversion therapy, an ineffective and often harmful practice targeting LGBTQ+ youth, violates a therapist's right to free speech

Demonstrators protest against conversion therapy outside the US Supreme Court as the court hears oral arguments. Chiles vs. Salazar October 7, 2025

ANDREW CABALRO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

Today the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Chiles vs. Salazarwhich is challenging Colorado's ban on conversion therapythe discredited and often harmful practice of attempting to change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity. Licensed mental health providers and physicians are prohibited by law from offering such treatment to minors.

The challenge to the Colorado law was filed in 2022 by Kaylee Chiles, a licensed professional counselor who “views her work as a result of her Christian faith,” as described in court documents. At Tuesday's hearing, her lawyers argued that the law should be subject to greater judicial scrutiny because it restricts Chiles' free speech, causing her “permanent, irreparable harm.”

Conversion therapy involves broad category approaches to try to change a person sexual orientation or gender identity. This may include talk therapy, medications, hypnosis, or “aversive” techniques such as electric shocks or inducing vomiting. Some programs are administered by religious ministries. others from medical professionals. Research has shown that these attempts at “cure” were simultaneously ineffective and dangerousand they are related to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and increased suicidality. A 2020 study found that LGBTQ+ people who have undergone conversion therapy, most often by religious leaders, almost twice as likely to have had suicidal thoughts than those who didn't have it. A 2024 national survey of LGBTQ+ youth in the United States conducted by the nonprofit Trevor Project found that 13 percent of respondents had been threatened or undergone conversion therapy..


About supporting science journalism

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism. subscription. By purchasing a subscription, you help ensure a future of influential stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Evidence of its ineffectiveness and risks has led to 23 states pass legislation prohibiting or restricting the use of conversion therapy on minors. A Colorado law passed in 2019 prohibits state-licensed therapists and doctors from providing such treatment to people under 18. Conversion therapy bans supported American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association and many other health and mental health professional organizations.

Chiles' lawyers argued that because her approach involves only talk therapy, Colorado law limits her freedom of speech by preventing her from providing it. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that Chiles's therapy, which takes the form of speech, is incidental and that it is in fact her professional behavior that is regulated.

“A state cannot lose the right to regulate the very professionals it licenses just because they use words. A health care provider cannot have the right to violate the standard of care just because it uses words,” the lawyer representing Colorado said in arguments today.

IN amicus brief filed in the Supreme CourtThe American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and 12 other professional organizations have argued that characterizing talk therapy as mere speech fundamentally misunderstands its therapeutic use and purpose.

“Therapy consists of evidence-based treatment, not just 'talk,'” the organizations write. They noted that there are state licensure requirements to ensure that providers are competent to provide safe and effective treatment. But conversion therapy efforts, they continued, “are potentially harmful, discredited practices, and are not supported by reliable scientific evidence.”

It's time to stand up for science

If you liked this article, I would like to ask for your support. Scientific American has been a champion of science and industry for 180 years, and now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I was Scientific American I have been a subscriber since I was 12, and it has helped shape my view of the world. Let me know always educates and delights me, instills a sense of awe in front of our vast and beautiful universe. I hope it does the same for you.

If you subscribe to Scientific Americanyou help ensure our coverage focuses on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on decisions that threaten laboratories across the US; and that we support both aspiring and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return you receive important news, fascinating podcastsbrilliant infographics, newsletters you can't missvideos worth watching challenging gamesand the world's best scientific articles and reporting. You can even give someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you will support us in this mission.

Leave a Comment