On October 14, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case that could reverberate across the country and reshape the legal landscape for LGBTQ+ rights and mental health care. At the heart of the matter is Colorado’s 2019 ban on conversion therapy for minors—a practice widely condemned by medical professionals yet still fiercely defended by some religious and conservative groups. The case, Chiles v. Salazar, has drawn national attention, pitting questions of free speech and religious liberty against the state’s duty to protect vulnerable youth from psychological harm.
Conversion therapy, which seeks to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity through psychological interventions, has been outlawed in more than 20 states and the District of Columbia. According to Reuters, Colorado’s law prohibits licensed mental health professionals from engaging in therapy aimed at changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity toward a predetermined outcome. Violators face fines of up to $5,000 per incident. The law, signed by Governor Jared Polis—the first openly gay man elected governor in the U.S.—permits therapies centered on acceptance, support, and exploration but bars attempts to “cure” LGBTQ+ identities.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, now holding a 6-3 edge, appeared sympathetic during oral arguments to the free speech claims of Kaley Chiles, a Christian counselor from Colorado Springs. Chiles, represented by the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, has not personally faced penalties under the ban. Instead, she was chosen as a test case to challenge what her supporters call the chilling effect of the law on voluntary conversations between counselors and clients regarding sexuality and gender.
James Campbell, Chiles’ attorney, argued before the justices, “Colorado forbids counselors like Kaley Chiles from helping minors pursue state-disfavored goals on issues of gender and sexuality. This law prophylactically bans voluntary conversations censoring widely held views on debated moral, religious and scientific questions.” He insisted that the law should be subject to the highest level of judicial scrutiny, warning, “If heightened scrutiny does not apply, states can transform counselors into mouthpieces for the government.”
Colorado’s solicitor general, Shannon Stevenson, countered that the law regulates professional conduct, not speech, and is rooted in the state’s responsibility to ensure minors receive safe and effective mental health care. “People have been trying to do conversion therapy for a hundred years, with no record of success,” Stevenson told the court, as reported by Reuters. “There is no study, despite the fact that people tried to advance this practice, that has ever shown that it has any chance of being efficacious.”
Medical authorities have long condemned conversion therapy. The American Psychological Association’s 2009 review found no evidence that the practice is effective and some evidence that it causes harm—including a doubling of suicide risk for those subjected to it. As noted in Slate, studies also link conversion therapy to alienation from family and faith communities, compounding the emotional toll on young people.
For many, the human cost is not abstract. The story of Alana Chen, a Boulder teenager who secretly underwent conversion therapy for seven years before dying by suicide in 2019 at age 24, has become emblematic of the dangers. Alana, a devout Catholic and A-plus student, was encouraged by her priest to keep her same-sex attraction secret from her family and to seek “healing” through therapy. Her journals, later discovered by her family, chronicled the shame and despair she felt over her inability to change. Simon Kent Fung, creator of the podcast Dear Alana, told Slate, “What I found is that the stacking of shame ultimately leads a lot of young people to despair.”
Fung’s own experience mirrors Alana’s. He spent years in conversion therapy and ex-gay ministries, hoping to reconcile his faith with his sexual orientation. “If there was evidence of it working, I would have been the first to promote it,” he said. Instead, he found that such therapies often redefine “healing” as changes in behavior or labels, not actual orientation. Fung emphasized that the law does not prevent exploration of gender or sexuality but seeks to ensure providers remain neutral and do not push children in either direction.
The legal battle is also a clash of political and cultural worldviews. Chiles and her supporters frame the ban as an infringement on free speech and religious liberty, contending that it censors disfavored viewpoints. “The First Amendment doesn’t permit Colorado’s censorship,” Campbell declared in court. Chiles herself has said she “believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex.” The Trump administration has joined her side, arguing that the law silences and marginalizes religious perspectives.
Opponents of conversion therapy argue that these claims misrepresent the law’s intent and effect. As Fung explained to Slate, “Colorado’s law permits the exploration of gender and orientation. All it is asking providers is to be neutral and not to push a child in either direction.” Even some conservative Christian therapists practicing in Colorado have filed briefs supporting the law, asserting that it protects children and faith communities from unproven and potentially harmful treatments.
Despite six years of no enforcement action—three before and three after the law was challenged—Chiles’ legal team maintains that the threat of enforcement creates “irreparable harm.” During arguments, Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether Chiles had standing to sue, given the state’s assurances that the law would not apply to her form of therapy. Yet Campbell insisted, “They have not disavowed enforcement.”
Some justices, including Ketanji Brown Jackson, floated the idea of sending the case back to lower courts for further review under strict scrutiny, which would require Colorado to prove its law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Campbell objected, warning, “There is irreparable harm going on right now. She is being silenced. The kids and the families who want this kind of help that she’ll offer are being left without any support.”
The outcome of the case, expected by the end of June, could have sweeping consequences. If the Supreme Court overturns Colorado’s ban, it may trigger a nationwide rollback of similar laws—potentially emboldening conversion therapy practitioners and increasing the risk to LGBTQ+ youth. Fung warned, “It will have a cascading effect across the country with similar laws. It will embolden the conversion therapy industry, and a lot more people like myself and Alana will fall victim to it.”
As the Supreme Court weighs its decision, the debate continues to rage beyond the courtroom. Supporters of the ban argue it is a necessary safeguard for vulnerable youth, while opponents claim it infringes on deeply held beliefs and parental rights. The stakes, for many families and young people, could not be higher.
Whatever the ruling, the national conversation about faith, identity, and the protection of children will undoubtedly continue—shaped by stories like Alana Chen’s and the enduring question of how best to care for those at the crossroads of tradition and change.
