The Supreme Court remanded Colorado's conversion therapy ban to the 10th Circuit under strict scrutiny, placing similar laws in 23 states and DC at risk.
The Supreme Court remanded a First Amendment challenge to Colorado's conversion therapy ban to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, directing that court to apply strict scrutiny rather than intermediate scrutiny when evaluating speech restrictions on licensed therapists [1]. The ruling, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, does not strike down Colorado's law outright but establishes a more demanding constitutional standard that the state must now satisfy to keep its ban in force [1]. Conversion therapy bans in 23 other states and the District of Columbia remain in effect pending the 10th Circuit's review [1].
The case arrived at the Supreme Court as a challenge to a Colorado statute prohibiting licensed mental health professionals from using conversion therapy with minor clients. The 10th Circuit had previously sustained the law under intermediate scrutiny, a standard courts commonly apply to professional speech regulations [1]. Petitioners argued that licensed therapist speech directed at clients is protected expression under the First Amendment and can be restricted only when the government clears the higher bar of strict scrutiny. The Supreme Court agreed, vacating the 10th Circuit's judgment and sending the matter back for analysis consistent with that standard [1].
The practical stakes are substantial. Strict scrutiny requires the government to demonstrate that a law advances a compelling state interest through the least restrictive means available, a test that many regulations fail [1]. If Colorado cannot satisfy that burden on remand, the ruling would create precedent that imperils the legal foundation supporting all similar bans across the country. The decision, in that scenario, would represent the broadest single rollback of state-level LGBTQ+ protective legislation in recent memory [1]. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is noted among the Court's members who engaged the underlying constitutional dispute [1].
The 10th Circuit must now reopen the record and apply the strict scrutiny framework to Colorado's justifications for the ban, including state findings on psychological harm to minors. Colorado and similarly situated states will bear the burden of marshaling empirical and legislative evidence sufficient to survive that elevated review. Advocacy groups on both sides of the issue are expected to seek amicus participation in the remand proceedings. The 10th Circuit's eventual ruling will almost certainly return to the Supreme Court regardless of outcome, making this remand an interim step in litigation with national consequences.