• Supreme Court agrees to hear a case challenging Colorado’s conversion therapy ban for minors.
• Kaley Chiles, a Christian therapist, argues the law violates her free speech and religious rights.
• The decision could set a precedent affecting laws in over 20 states prohibiting conversion therapy.
• Critics argue conversion therapy is harmful and ineffective, while supporters claim it upholds free speech.

The Supreme Court has decided to hear a significant case challenging a Colorado law that prohibits mental health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy aimed at minors. The law, enacted in 2019, seeks to protect youth from practices deemed harmful and ineffective by numerous medical associations. The case was brought forth by Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor and practicing Christian, who argues that the ban infringes on her freedom of speech and her ability to practice her religious beliefs in therapy. Chiles claims that the law prevents her from providing counseling to individuals who may want to explore or reconcile their sexual orientation with their faith, stating that her clients often "prioritize their faith above their feelings."

The Colorado law, part of a broader trend over the last decade, reflects growing resistance against conversion therapy across the United States, with more than 20 states enacting similar bans to protect minors from practices that have been linked to increased risks of depression and suicide among LGBTQ+ youth. Critics of conversion therapy describe it as a form of psychological torture; international bodies like the United Nations have called for its global prohibition due to the “pain and suffering” it inflicts.

Previously, federal judges upheld the Colorado law, contending it regulates professional conduct rather than limiting free speech, a point Colorado state attorneys have strongly emphasized. Colorado officials argue that allowing therapists to perform conversion therapy undermines their capacity to protect patients, particularly minors, from potentially harmful practices.

Chiles’ case is being supported by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group known for advocating in favor of religious freedoms and against LGBTQ protections in various legal contexts. They argue that the law effectively censors private discussions between licensed therapists and their clients.

The case is set to be heard during the Supreme Court’s next term starting in October. A ruling could have significant implications, potentially challenging the authority of states to regulate professional conduct in mental health and setting a precedent that may influence similar ban laws nationwide.

For more details, visit the Reuters report.