Lead
The US Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors likely violates the First Amendment's free speech protections, siding with a Christian counselor who challenged the law. The 8-1 decision, authored by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, reverses a lower court ruling that had upheld the ban and sends the case back for further proceedings under a stricter First Amendment standard.
The law, signed by Democratic Governor Jared Polis in 2019, prohibited licensed mental health providers from attempting to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBTQ patients under 18, with fines of up to $5,000 for violations.
Coverage comparison
Reporting from Deutsche Welle, The Hindu, and The Intercept broadly agree on the core facts: the Supreme Court struck down the Colorado law as unconstitutional, Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissenter. All three also noted that President Donald Trump's administration supported the counselor, Kaley Chiles, in her challenge.
However, the outlets differ in emphasis and tone. Deutsche Welle and The Hindu present the ruling neutrally, focusing on the legal reasoning and the First Amendment issue. The Intercept, a progressive nonprofit, frames the decision as a threat to conversion therapy bans nationwide and to trans youth, describing the ruling's potential consequences as "terrifying" and highlighting a dissent from Justice Jackson that warns of harm to medical standards.
Key claims
The Supreme Court's decision centers on the argument that Colorado's law regulated speech, not just professional conduct. Justice Gorsuch wrote: "Colorado's law addressing conversion therapy does not just ban physical interventions. In cases like this, it censors speech based on viewpoint." He added that while Colorado may view its policy as essential to public health, the First Amendment "stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country."
The court left open the possibility that the law could still apply to certain forms of conversion therapy, including "aversive" physical interventions, but not to Chiles' speech-based counseling.
Justice Jackson, in dissent, argued that the ruling "turns its back" on a tradition of state regulation ensuring quality medical care. She wrote: "Before now, licensed medical professionals had to adhere to standards when treating patients: They could neither do nor say whatever they want." The Intercept reported that Jackson also suggested the ruling might apply to other medical treatments involving practitioner speech, a concern echoed by public health experts.
Chiles, described by The Hindu as a Christian licensed counselor, argued that the law violated her free speech rights. The Supreme Court's decision reversed a lower court's ruling that had upheld the ban.
Perspectives
Supporters of the ruling, including the Trump administration and free speech advocates, argue that the First Amendment protects therapists' right to discuss ideas and provide counseling without government viewpoint discrimination. They see the decision as a victory for free expression.
Opponents, including LGBTQ advocacy groups and medical associations, condemn the ruling as harmful. They point to evidence that conversion therapy is ineffective and dangerous, citing the Trevor Project's finding that LGBTQ youth who experienced conversion therapy are more than twice as likely to attempt suicide. They also warn that the decision could embolden challenges to similar bans in over 20 US states and undermine medical regulation.
Medical organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have long opposed conversion therapy. The United Nations has also called for a global ban, describing such practices as discriminatory and humiliating. Despite the court's decision, many states and European countries, including Germany, maintain bans on conversion therapy, indicating that the legal landscape remains contested.