Instant Insight

30-Second Take

• The Supreme Court will decide if states can ban conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ minors.
• The case involves a Colorado law prohibiting licensed therapists from practicing conversion therapy on youth.
• The challenge argues the law violates the First Amendment by restricting speech.

Quick Brief

2-Minute Digest

Essential Context

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ minors. This therapy, widely debunked by medical organizations, aims to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

Core Players

• Kaley Chiles – Christian therapist challenging the Colorado law
• Alliance Defending Freedom – Conservative legal organization representing Chiles
• State of Colorado – Defendant in the case, defending the ban on conversion therapy
• National Women’s Law Center – Advocating for the protection of LGBTQ+ youth

Key Numbers

• 22+ states – Have laws prohibiting conversion therapy for minors
• 15% – Percentage of LGBTQ+ youth still threatened with or subjected to conversion therapy
• 2022 – Year Chiles sued the state over the conversion therapy ban
• October 2025 – Expected start of the Supreme Court’s new term when the case will be argued

Full Depth

Complete Coverage

The Catalyst

The case, *Chiles v. Salazar*, was brought by therapist Kaley Chiles, who argues that Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy violates her First Amendment rights by restricting her ability to communicate with clients.

Chiles’ lawyers argue that she does not aim to “cure” or “change” clients’ sexual orientation but rather to align their therapy with their faith-based beliefs.

Inside Forces

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Colorado’s law, while the 11th Circuit struck down similar local bans in Florida, creating a split that prompted the Supreme Court to take up the case.

Conservative justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas previously expressed interest in addressing this issue, and it is unclear who provided the fourth vote to grant review.

Power Dynamics

The Supreme Court’s decision will have significant implications for LGBTQ+ youth. Advocates argue that conversion therapy is harmful and ineffective, supported by evidence from major medical organizations.

Opponents, like Chiles and her legal team, argue that the ban infringes on free speech and religious freedom.

Outside Impact

The case is part of a broader landscape of legal battles over LGBTQ+ rights. The Court is also considering a Tennessee case regarding bans on gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth.

Stakeholders, including the National Women’s Law Center, are advocating strongly for the protection of LGBTQ+ youth from harmful conversion therapy.

Future Forces

The outcome of this case will set a precedent for state laws regulating professional conduct, particularly in the context of mental health and LGBTQ+ rights.

• State-by-state legal landscape for conversion therapy bans
• Impact on mental health services for LGBTQ+ minors
• Broader implications for free speech and religious freedom arguments

Data Points

• 2018: The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that California could not force state-licensed anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to provide abortion information, a precedent cited by Chiles’ lawyers.
• 2023: The Supreme Court previously turned away a similar challenge to conversion therapy bans despite a split among federal appeals courts.
• March 10, 2025: The Supreme Court announced it would hear the Colorado case.
• October 2025: The case is expected to be argued during the Supreme Court’s new term.