Supreme Court Ruling Sparks Free Speech Debate on Conversion Therapy

Critics point to inconsistencies in the court's approach to regulating speech in healthcare and entertainment contexts.

Apr. 7, 2026 at 11:07am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A highly abstract, fragmented painting in shades of blue, green, and purple, depicting the shapes of two people in a counseling session, with the figures and setting broken up into overlapping geometric patterns, conveying a sense of tension and uncertainty around the regulation of this type of professional service.The Supreme Court's ruling on conversion therapy has sparked a debate over the boundaries of free speech and the regulation of professional counseling services.Houston Today

The Supreme Court's recent ruling against Colorado's ban on conversion therapy has ignited a debate around free speech and the regulation of certain forms of counseling and therapy. While the court found the state's law to be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, critics have highlighted apparent inconsistencies in how the court has approached regulating speech in healthcare versus entertainment contexts, such as with laws restricting drag performances.

Why it matters

The Supreme Court's decision raises questions about the boundaries of free speech protections, particularly when it comes to professional services like counseling and therapy that have historically been subject to regulation. The ruling also highlights potential double standards in how the court evaluates restrictions on speech in different domains.

The details

In its ruling on Chiles v. Salazar, the Supreme Court found that Colorado's 2019 ban on conversion therapy 'regulates speech based on viewpoint' and therefore violates the First Amendment. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of the ban itself, but sent the case back to lower courts for further review under a higher standard. Legal experts argue the ruling effectively distinguishes conversion therapy as a form of speech rather than a regulated medical practice. Meanwhile, critics point to state laws that require abortion providers to convey certain information to patients, which they say are also restrictions on free speech in a healthcare context.

  • The Supreme Court issued its ruling on the case of Chiles v. Salazar on April 3, 2026.
  • Colorado's ban on conversion therapy was enacted in 2019.

The players

Neil Gorsuch

The Supreme Court justice who wrote the majority opinion in the Chiles v. Salazar case.

Ketanji Brown Jackson

The sole Supreme Court justice who dissented in the Chiles v. Salazar ruling.

Kaley Chiles

The licensed counselor in Colorado who was the plaintiff in the Chiles v. Salazar case challenging the state's ban on conversion therapy.

Seth Chandler

A professor of law at the University of Houston who argued the Supreme Court's ruling was ultimately the right decision based on First Amendment principles.

Zoe Taylor

A family physician in Washington state and former fellow at the Physicians for Reproductive Health advocacy group, who pointed out apparent inconsistencies in how the court has approached regulating speech in healthcare contexts.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“A law regulating the content of speech cannot avoid searching First Amendment review just because it mostly regulates non-expressive conduct. What matters is whether, in fact, the law regulates speech in the case at hand.”

— Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court Justice

“Colorado took sides, where it said it's fine with us if you want to engage in gender-affirming speech, but we are going to prohibit you from engaging in 'rethinking your sexuality' speech.”

— Seth Chandler, Professor of Law, University of Houston

“Doctors who provide abortions have been forced to tell patients things that are untrue, forced to give them pamphlets that say untrue things. Doctors who work for the VA or the military hospitals are not even allowed to counsel on abortion. So, how is that not a violation of free speech?”

— Zoe Taylor, Family Physician, Former Fellow at Physicians for Reproductive Health

What’s next

The Supreme Court's ruling in Chiles v. Salazar has been sent back to lower courts for further review under a higher standard, which could lead to additional legal challenges and rulings on the constitutionality of conversion therapy bans.

The takeaway

The Supreme Court's decision in the Chiles v. Salazar case has reignited debates around the boundaries of free speech, particularly when it comes to regulating professional services like counseling and therapy. The apparent inconsistencies in how the court has approached speech restrictions in healthcare versus entertainment contexts have raised questions about potential double standards in the court's jurisprudence.