Five years ago, the United Nations made a bold declaration: conversion therapy, the controversial practice aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, could amount to torture and should be banned worldwide. Fast forward to Tuesday, October 7, 2025, and the issue is back at the center of American legal and cultural debate as the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in Chiles v. Salazar—a case that could reshape the legal landscape for LGBTQ+ youth across the country.
At the heart of the case is Colorado’s 2019 ban on conversion therapy for minors, a law that reflects a growing consensus among medical professionals and lawmakers. Conversion therapy is widely condemned by every major medical association in the United States, including the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Medical Association. The practice, often cloaked in pseudoscientific language, has a dark history: it has included physical, psychological, and sexual abuse against minors, such as electric shock, masturbation reconditioning, starvation, chemically induced nausea, and hypnosis.
According to the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law, nearly 700,000 adults in the U.S. are survivors of conversion therapy. The institute, which submitted an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold Colorado’s ban, has been at the forefront of research on the practice’s impact. Ilan Meyer, a distinguished senior scholar of public policy at the Williams Institute, put it plainly in a statement reported by The 19th News: “Research shows conversion therapy is ineffective at changing a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity and is associated with significant harm, which is why major professional organizations have overwhelmingly rejected the practice.”
Currently, twenty-three states and Washington, D.C., have enacted laws banning conversion therapy for minors. Four more states and Puerto Rico have taken steps to limit the practice. These laws generally permit therapists to discuss sexual orientation and gender identity with young people, but they draw a firm line: practitioners cannot promise to change a youth’s gender identity or sexual orientation, nor can they pressure them to do so. The Supreme Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar could upend these protections, not just in Colorado, but nationwide.
The case was brought by Kaley Chiles, a Christian counselor who argues that Colorado’s ban infringes on her First Amendment rights. Chiles, with support from the Trump administration and 19 state attorneys general, claims that her right to practice conversion therapy is a form of protected speech. This argument has found traction in some legal circles, but not all. Federal appellate courts are split: the Ninth and Tenth Circuits have ruled that conversion therapy constitutes conduct, not speech, while the Eleventh Circuit found it to be protected speech. Now, the Supreme Court will have the final say.
The stakes are high, and the implications vast. Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign—the nation’s largest LGBTQ+ rights organization—did not mince words in a statement reported by The 19th News. “In recent years, we have seen decisions out of our highest court that have rolled back our rights and cleared a pathway for discriminatory legislation that targets LGBTQ+ people and other marginalized communities,” Robinson said. “From access to critical health care to inclusivity in our schools, this shift is nothing short of alarming—and now the safety of our children is once again up for debate.”
Robinson’s concerns are echoed by many in the LGBTQ+ community and their allies, who view the Supreme Court’s current conservative majority with apprehension. The outcome of Chiles v. Salazar could set a precedent that either affirms or dismantles the patchwork of state-level protections for LGBTQ+ youth. If the court sides with Chiles, states could be forced to roll back their bans, potentially exposing thousands of young people to practices that medical experts deem deeply harmful.
But the legal debate isn’t confined to the boundaries of Colorado. The Supreme Court’s decision will likely ripple outward, affecting similar laws in other states and shaping the national conversation about the intersection of free speech and public health. Supporters of the ban argue that conversion therapy is not merely a matter of speech, but a form of conduct that has been proven to cause harm. Opponents, meanwhile, insist that restricting counselors from engaging in such practices violates their constitutional rights.
This isn’t the only LGBTQ+ issue before the Supreme Court this term. The court is also set to hear two other major cases: BPJ v. West Virginia and Hecox v. Little, both of which challenge statewide bans on transgender participation in sports in Virginia and Idaho, respectively. Opinions in these cases are expected in the spring or summer of 2026, adding to what many are calling a blockbuster term for LGBTQ+ rights at the nation’s highest court.
The origins of conversion therapy stretch back more than a century, but it wasn’t until recent decades that its dangers gained widespread recognition. Survivors and advocates have campaigned tirelessly to expose the harm caused by the practice, sharing harrowing stories of abuse, emotional trauma, and lifelong scars. The United Nations’ 2020 report drew a clear line, labeling conversion therapy as a potential form of torture and calling for a global ban. Despite this, the practice persists in parts of the United States, often under the guise of religious freedom or parental rights.
For lawmakers and activists, the fight against conversion therapy is about more than just legal statutes—it’s about safeguarding the mental and physical health of vulnerable youth. The American Medical Association and its counterparts have issued repeated warnings about the risks, citing increased rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide among those subjected to conversion therapy. These warnings have spurred legislative action in many states, but the upcoming Supreme Court decision could either reinforce or unravel these hard-won gains.
As the justices prepare to hear arguments, both sides are marshaling their best legal minds and most compelling evidence. The outcome will hinge not only on constitutional interpretation but also on the court’s willingness to weigh the overwhelming scientific consensus against claims of free speech and religious liberty. It’s a legal and moral crossroads, one that will define the boundaries of protection for LGBTQ+ youth for years to come.
With the eyes of the nation—and indeed, the world—fixed on Washington, the Supreme Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar is poised to become a landmark moment in the ongoing struggle for LGBTQ+ rights. Whether it will mark a step forward or a step back remains to be seen, but for the nearly 700,000 survivors and countless advocates, the stakes could hardly be higher.