The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on Tuesday that Colorado’s ban on so-called 'conversion therapy' violates the First Amendment by restricting counselors' speech based on viewpoint. The decision in Chiles v. Salazar has prompted Democratic-led states to review their laws and consider new legislative approaches.
Immediate Action & Core Facts
The Supreme Court found Colorado’s law unconstitutional because it allowed therapists to affirm a minor’s gender identity but not help them change it. The ruling has led to legal reviews in states like Maryland and Vermont, where officials are assessing the impact on existing laws.
In Colorado, the Democratic-controlled House advanced a bill allowing lawsuits against therapists accused of harming patients through conversion therapy. The measure, HB26-1322, would permit civil claims against providers and their employers, potentially exposing them to significant financial liability.
Deeper Dive & Context
State Responses to the Ruling
Maryland Gov. Wes Moore’s administration is reviewing the ruling to determine its implications for the state’s law. Jeremy Browning, director of the Maryland Commission on LGBTQIA+ Affairs, expressed concerns about the law’s vulnerability to legal challenges.
Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark indicated that the state’s law may require adjustments to withstand future challenges. She suggested minor tweaks rather than a complete overhaul.
Colorado’s Legislative Push
Colorado state Rep. Karen McCormick, a Democrat, vowed to continue protecting LGBTQ+ rights despite the Supreme Court’s decision. The state House advanced a bill allowing lawsuits against therapists, which Republican lawmakers criticized as a direct challenge to the court’s ruling.
Legal and Policy Implications
The Supreme Court’s decision follows previous rulings against Colorado laws, including 2023’s 303 Creative v. Elenis and 2018’s Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. These cases also involved free speech concerns related to LGBTQ+ protections.
Caleb Trotter, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, argued that the First Amendment protects unpopular speech, not just government-approved viewpoints. He criticized Colorado’s approach to free speech debates.
Opposing Perspectives
Republican lawmakers, including Colorado House member Matt Soper, condemned the new bill as a “slap in the face” to the Supreme Court. They argued that the legislation effectively maintains a ban on conversion therapy despite the court’s ruling.
Long-Term Implications
The ruling raises questions about how states will balance free speech protections with laws aimed at protecting LGBTQ+ individuals. Some states may seek to amend their laws to comply with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment.