• The Supreme Court is hearing a case on Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors.
• Kaley Chiles, a Christian counselor, argues the ban infringes on her free speech rights.
• The court appears divided, with several justices questioning the constitutionality of the law.
• More than 20 states have enacted similar bans aimed at protecting LGBTQ youth.
• A decision is expected by the end of June 2026.

The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments regarding Colorado's 2019 law that bans "conversion therapy" for minors, which prohibits licensed counselors from attempting to alter an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity through counseling. This case, Chiles v. Salazar, is brought forth by Kaley Chiles, a licensed therapist who claims the law infringes on her First Amendment rights by restricting conversations with her minor clients regarding their sexual feelings and identity. The law dictates that while engaging with clients, therapists cannot seek to "eliminate or reduce" same-sex attractions, a stipulation that Chiles argues poses a threat to her practice and ability to support her clients in their personal journeys, according to CBS News.

During the oral arguments, the justices expressed skepticism about whether the law was infringing on free speech rights, with Justice Samuel Alito noting it seems to create a double standard in therapy options available to minors. He pointed out that the law would allow discussions that affirm one's sexual identity but prohibits any guidance toward changing those feelings, which he described as "blatant viewpoint discrimination." This sentiment was echoed by several other justices who appeared to believe the Colorado law might be overreaching in regulating speech under the guise of protecting minors, according to Los Angeles Times and HuffPost.

Colorado's defense of the law centers on the assertion that it regulates harmful practices rather than speech, protecting vulnerable youth from potentially damaging "conversion therapies" that have long been discredited by medical authorities. State Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson emphasized the importance of regulating healthcare to maintain patient safety, arguing that the Supreme Court has traditionally allowed states to impose such regulations. However, with conservative justices questioning the adequacy of evidence that supports claims of conversion therapy's harm, the perspectives on the validity of scientific consensus surrounding this practice came into play, as discussed in Al Jazeera and ABC News.

The implications of the Court’s ruling could extend far beyond Colorado, potentially jeopardizing similar laws across approximately 23 states. As some justices suggested that regulation of therapist-client conversations might interfere with First Amendment protections, the argument that state laws could be perceived as biased towards one side of the debate over sexual identity was brought to the forefront. This raises broader questions about the scope of free speech in the therapeutic context, particularly in how it aligns with caring for LGBTQ youth, according to CBS News, Los Angeles Times, and HuffPost.

A decision from the Supreme Court in this case is eagerly anticipated and is expected to be delivered by the end of June 2026. Advocates and opponents alike are watching closely, as it is likely to shape the future of both LGBTQ rights and the regulation of mental health practices in the United States, reflecting broader societal debates on equality and free expression, as noted in Los Angeles Times and ABC News.