The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled 8–1 that US states cannot ban ‘conversion therapy’ for minors by limiting what licensed therapists are allowed to say in sessions, a decision sparking concern among LGBTQ+ advocates.

The case, Chiles v. Salazar, centred on whether Colorado could stop a therapist from offering counselling aimed at changing a young person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The Court decided that because this type of therapy is based on talking, it is protected by the First Amendment.

 Justice Neil Gorsuch said the government cannot restrict speech simply because it disagrees with the message. In his view, Colorado’s law unfairly targets certain viewpoints, banning therapists from discouraging same-sex relationships or the expression of different gender identities, while allowing affirming conversations.

The challenge was brought by Kaley Chiles, a Christian counsellor who argued that her work is part of her faith. She said some clients actively seek help to align their lives with their religious beliefs, including reducing same-sex attraction or questioning their gender identity.

Experts, however, have highlighted how the Supreme Court ruling ignores a strong medical consensus that ‘conversion therapy’ is harmful.

Moreover, Ketanji Brown Jackson, the only justice to dispute, warned that the decision could weaken states’ ability to protect young patients. She argued that just because a treatment involves speech does not mean it should be beyond regulation.

LGBTQ+ organisations, including GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign, condemned the decision. They say ‘conversion therapy’ has been widely discredited and linked to higher risks of depression, anxiety and suicide among LGBTQ+ people, especially young people.

While the Court did not fully strike down Colorado’s law, the case was sent back to a lower court for further review. Despite this, the ruling sets a dangerous precedent that could make it harder for states to enforce bans in the future.

With over 20 states currently having some form of restriction on ‘conversion therapy’, following the Supreme Court decision, those protections may face new legal challenges.