Ryan Kendall still remembers the moment he discovered the word that would change his life. It was 1994, and the then 11-year-old, growing up in a conservative evangelical community in Colorado Springs, Colorado, stumbled across the word "homosexual" while paging through an encyclopedia at lunch. Two things became instantly clear to him: the word described who he was, and it was something he had to keep hidden.
"You can only put a child through so much before something happens," Kendall, now 42 and a civil rights lawyer, told HuffPost. "I literally climbed out the window and ran away." At 13, his secret was revealed when his father found his journal, and the fallout was swift and severe. Kendall's parents, both deeply religious, told him he was going to hell and sought help from Christian therapists in an attempt to "make" their son straight. For the next year and a half, Kendall endured weekly phone therapy sessions, with a psychologist probing for what had "caused" his sexual orientation. But Kendall knew, even then, that nothing would change who he was.
Conversion therapy, the controversial practice at the heart of Kendall's story, has a long and troubling history in the United States. In the 1970s, when homosexuality was still classified as a mental illness, conversion therapy could mean electric shock treatments. Today, it's more likely to take the form of talk therapy, often delivered by religious counselors. Despite changes in method, the intent remains the same: to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
Major medical and mental health organizations, including the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association, have unequivocally condemned conversion therapy. According to these groups, there is no credible evidence that such practices can alter sexual orientation or gender identity. On the contrary, studies have shown that LGBTQ+ adults and youth who undergo conversion therapy experience higher rates of suicidality, depression, anxiety, and financial instability later in life.
As of October 2025, 23 states—including Colorado—and Washington, D.C., have enacted bans prohibiting licensed mental health practitioners from subjecting minors to conversion therapy. These laws have garnered support from Democratic leaders, as well as some Republicans and faith leaders, reflecting a growing consensus around the dangers of these practices. Colorado's own law, enacted in 2019, bars licensed providers from attempting to change a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity. However, it does not apply to unlicensed religious counselors, leaving a notable gap in enforcement.
But the future of these protections is now in question. On October 7, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, a case brought by Kaley Chiles, a Christian licensed counselor from Colorado Springs. Chiles argues that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy infringes on her First Amendment right to free speech. In her legal filings, Chiles claims the law restricts her ability to counsel minors who wish "to resist same-sex relationships or align the client’s sense of identity and biological sex." Yet, she also maintains that she "does not seek to impose her values or beliefs on her clients."
Chiles’s challenge has already been rejected by lower courts. In 2022, she filed suit against 16 state officials, arguing that the First Amendment protects her professional speech. The district court ruled against her, and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, finding she had not demonstrated that the ban violated her fundamental rights. In March 2025, however, the Supreme Court agreed to take up her case, setting the stage for a potentially landmark decision.
Representing Chiles is the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative Christian legal group with a history of challenging LGBTQ+ protections. The ADF played a pivotal role in overturning Roe v. Wade and has won several Supreme Court victories allowing religious business owners to refuse service to LGBTQ+ customers. In this case, Chiles and the ADF cite a 2025 Department of Health and Human Services report that questions the scientific basis for gender-affirming care for transgender youth—a position at odds with the consensus of major medical associations.
According to Casey Pick, director of law and policy at The Trevor Project, a suicide prevention group for LGBTQ+ youth, "Historically these practices have been known by a wide range of names. ‘Reparative therapy,’ ‘sexual attraction, fluidity, exploration therapy,’ and ‘gender exploratory therapy’ is a current and recent name that is getting thrown around. All of [these names] are intended to sound legitimate, to lean on the trust and authority that is given to psychology, and to avoid the scrutiny that comes whenever people understand that this is all the same old snake oil in new packages."
Even with bans in place, enforcement is rare and difficult to track, partly because the laws are relatively new and complaints are often sealed. Since Colorado’s law took effect in 2019, the state has not taken action against any providers, according to Attorney General Phil Weiser. Nonetheless, Pick argues that the existence of these laws has a powerful deterrent effect, preventing harm before it happens and sending a clear message that such practices are not legitimate.
The Supreme Court’s consideration of Chiles v. Salazar comes at a time when LGBTQ+ rights are facing renewed legal challenges. In June, the Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, and now 26 states have similar restrictions on treatments like puberty blockers and hormone therapy. The ADF has leaned heavily on recent legal precedents, framing the Colorado ban as a question of free speech rather than a matter of professional licensing. The conservative justices on the Court have previously shown openness to this argument. In a 2018 decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that "speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by professionals," and that states cannot "reduce a group’s First Amendment rights by simply imposing a licensing requirement."
Similarly, in the 2023 case 303 Creative v. Elenis, the Court ruled that Colorado’s anti-discrimination law violated the First Amendment because it could force a Christian website designer to make a wedding site for a gay couple. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the "First Amendment extends to all persons engaged in expressive conduct, including those who seek profit." Two years ago, the Court declined to hear a similar challenge to Washington state’s conversion therapy ban, but Justice Thomas signaled in a dissent that the issue should be revisited.
For LGBTQ+ advocates, the stakes could not be higher. Nearly 700,000 LGBTQ+ adults in the U.S. have undergone conversion therapy, including 350,000 as adolescents, according to the Williams Institute at UCLA. The Trevor Project found that about 1,400 young people were subjected to conversion therapy in 2023 alone. The practice, while discredited, continues to haunt LGBTQ+ people and their families.
Ryan Kendall, whose own story helped shape both a 2010 federal trial challenging California’s Proposition 8 and the 2012 campaign for the nation’s first ban on conversion therapy, has dedicated much of his adult life to this fight. Today, he is part of an amicus brief with seven other survivors, urging the Supreme Court to uphold protections for minors. "I like to say that one of the greatest gifts I’ve given myself is a life beyond conversion therapy," Kendall said. His message to young queer and trans kids is one of hope and affirmation: "There’s nothing wrong with who they are, conversion therapy is a lie, and they deserve to live a life authentically. Your identity is beautiful, you’re a miracle, and don’t let conversion therapy take that away."
As the Supreme Court prepares to weigh in, the outcome could reshape the legal landscape for LGBTQ+ youth across the country, determining whether states can continue to protect vulnerable minors from practices that most experts agree are both ineffective and deeply harmful. The nation now waits to see whether the hard-won safeguards of recent years will endure or be swept aside by a new legal precedent.
