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.
