The Supreme Court ruled Colorado's conversion therapy ban must survive strict scrutiny, remanding to the Tenth Circuit in a decision that threatens 24 similar state laws.
The Supreme Court ruled that Colorado's ban on conversion therapy, as applied to licensed therapists engaging in talk therapy, must survive strict scrutiny before it can stand [1]. The Court vacated the lower court's decision and remanded the case to the Tenth Circuit with instructions to apply that heightened constitutional standard [1]. The ruling does not strike down the law. Colorado's ban and approximately 23 similar state laws remain in effect while the remand proceedings unfold [2].
The case, *Chiles v. Colorado*, reached the Court after a licensed therapist challenged the Colorado law as an unconstitutional restriction on professional speech [1]. The Tenth Circuit had previously upheld the law under a more deferential standard of review. The Supreme Court reversed that approach, concluding that because the statute restricts what a therapist may say during a session, it burdens speech and must be evaluated under the most demanding tier of First Amendment scrutiny [2].
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority, holding that the law functions as a content-based speech restriction targeting therapeutic conversation and that the government must demonstrate a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means to sustain it [1]. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing that courts have historically permitted legislatures to regulate the practice of medicine and that such regulation can encompass some forms of professional speech without triggering strict scrutiny [2]. The divide reflects a durable tension in First Amendment doctrine between professional-speech deference and content-neutrality principles.
The ruling carries substantial consequence beyond Colorado. Twenty-four states have enacted laws restricting or prohibiting conversion therapy, most of them structured similarly to the Colorado statute [2]. The Tenth Circuit's disposition on remand, and any subsequent circuit court rulings in parallel challenges, will shape whether those laws survive or fall. A ruling that Colorado's law cannot satisfy strict scrutiny would effectively invalidate the statutory framework adopted across roughly half the country. Advocates on both sides have signaled they will monitor the remand closely and likely pursue further appellate review depending on the outcome [1].
The Tenth Circuit has no set deadline to complete the remand proceedings. Additional constitutional challenges in other circuits are expected to accelerate given the Court's newly established doctrinal framework [2].