Supreme Court Upholds Conversion Therapy Protections

Experts argue the ruling ignores medical standards and patient safety.

Apr. 2, 2026 at 5:41pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Chiles v. Salazar upheld the right of individuals, including licensed therapists, to engage in 'conversion therapy' - the discredited practice of attempting to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. The ruling struck down a Colorado law banning such practices, with the court arguing it violated free speech protections. However, medical experts strongly oppose conversion therapy, citing the serious risks of harm, including increased rates of depression and suicide among LGBTQ+ youth who undergo these treatments.

Why it matters

The Supreme Court's decision has sparked concerns that it undermines the authority of medical professionals and established standards of care. Critics argue the ruling prioritizes individual expression over patient wellbeing, potentially putting vulnerable populations at risk by allowing the continuation of unethical and scientifically unsound practices.

The details

The Colorado law at the center of the case prohibited licensed therapists from engaging in conversion therapy with minors. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that this amounted to unconstitutional censorship of speech. In the majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed concerns about 'orthodoxy in thought' and the need to protect free expression, even on controversial topics. However, the American Psychiatric Association and other medical groups have long condemned conversion therapy as ineffective and harmful, linked to increased rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation among LGBTQ+ youth.

  • The Colorado law banning conversion therapy for minors was passed in 2019.
  • The Supreme Court issued its ruling in the Chiles v. Salazar case on April 2, 2026.

The players

Chiles v. Salazar

A Supreme Court case that struck down a Colorado law banning conversion therapy for minors, ruling it violated free speech protections.

American Psychiatric Association (APA)

The leading professional organization of psychiatrists in the United States, which has long opposed conversion therapy as ineffective and harmful.

Justice Neil Gorsuch

The author of the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Chiles v. Salazar, which argued the Colorado law amounted to unconstitutional censorship of speech.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

The dissenting justice in Chiles v. Salazar, who argued that the court's ruling ignored the medical harms of conversion therapy.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Government can't ignore malpractice. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson observed in her dissent, substandard care can come from 'speech instead of scalpel.'”

— Peter Jensen, Editorial Writer, The Baltimore Sun

“The counter-argument is, of course, that matters involving gender and sexual identity aren't so clear-cut as blood sugar levels. Justice Neil Gorsuch frets about 'orthodoxy in thought.' But ask the experts. The American Psychiatric Association opposes conversion therapy as rooted in the false perception that differences in sexual orientation and gender identity are mental illness.”

— Peter Jensen, Editorial Writer, The Baltimore Sun

What’s next

The Supreme Court's ruling in Chiles v. Salazar is expected to face ongoing legal challenges, as medical and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups push for stronger protections against conversion therapy practices.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing tension between individual rights and established medical standards, with the Supreme Court prioritizing free speech over the wellbeing of vulnerable patients. It underscores the need for policymakers and the public to rely on scientific consensus when regulating healthcare practices, rather than allowing ideological or religious views to override evidence-based standards of care.