On March 31st of 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that Colorado’s long standing ban on conversion therapy, practices that aim to change the gender identity or sexuality of the patient, was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Let’s go over what conversion therapy is, why it was banned in the first place, what this Supreme Court ruling actually means, and what this means for LGBTQIA+ people in Colorado and the U.S.A. at large.

First of all, what is conversion therapy? WebMD defines conversion therapy as “any emotional or physical therapy used to ‘cure’ or ‘repair’ a person’s attraction to the same sex, or their gender identity and expression.” That same article goes on to explain the purpose and methods of conversion therapy. Conversion therapy can be done in the form of talk therapy, in a group setting, in a religious setting, or even medically, often involving giving the patient hormones or steroids, all to convince them to fit into heterosexual or cisgender roles.

For a long period of history, people viewed being LGBTQIA+ as a “disease,” so the idea of curing that disease was a promising prospect. This led scientists and so called “doctors” to develop more, often inhumane, methods of turning gay patients straight or turning trans patients cis, leading to the usage of aversion therapy. Aversion therapy was a practice that tried to essentially traumatize LGBTQIA+ people out of their identity. They did this by giving them either electrical shocks or chemicals that would induce vomiting whenever exposed to stimulating or affirming input.

Aversion therapy, and conversion therapy in general, has been shown to be torturous and abusive in almost every case scenario. Even in the less aggressively damaging cases of conversion therapy, it has still been tied to depression and anxiety, and people who undergo conversion therapy are more likely to commit suicide, develop substance abuse habits, and become homeless. In addition to the clear harm associated with conversion therapy, it is also not shown to be effective to any degree. Cornell University reviewed 12 studies, each determining that conversion therapy does not effectively revert people of any sexual orientation to heterosexuality, or people of any gender identity to being cisgender, and that they especially couldn’t do this without harm. The only factual conclusion that can be reached about conversion therapy is that it is not safe or effective enough to be ethically used on real people. The state of Colorado initially banned conversion therapy in 2019. The states and districts of California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Washington, D.C.have all have laws meant to protect LGBTQIA+ youth from conversion therapy. Considering its history and lack of medical legitimacy, it is easy to see why. Colorado specifically has the MCTL, or the Minor Conversion Therapy Law, which prevents mental health professionals from using conversion therapy on minors.

So why would a practice that has no evidence backing it, that has been shown to be incredibly harmful to those it is used on, be supported by the Supreme Court? The matter of conversion therapy was readdressed because of the Supreme Court case Chiles v. Salazar. Within this case, Kayley Chiles, a Christian and counselor located in Colorado Springs, Colorado, argued that the state’s ban on conversion therapy limited her right to free speech and limited the options for parents of trans kids to find therapists who aren’t gender affirming. Her opponent, Colorado, stated that its ban on conversion therapy still allowed for a wide range of angles counselors could take with their trans patients, and that the laws around freedom of speech were more restrictive when it applied to a medical professional providing care to a minor.

In the end, Chiles won her case with 8/9 justices agreeing with her on Tuesday, March 31, 2026. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only one to vote against her. Jackson argued that counselors are already bound by similar restrictions and that this was necessary in the context of their professions. Interestingly, the MCTL has already withstood legal action with a similar argument to the one proposed by Chiles. In 2024

The Supreme Court’s ruling means that now, enforcing the MCTL can only be enforced under the standard of strict scrutiny, which is the highest level of judicial review. This will open up therapists to using techniques that would previously have been considered conversion therapy, and will likely result in more therapists who are less accepting or open to LGBTQIA+ identities.

Chiles makes a point of differentiating her work from the cruel aversion therapy techniques that are sometimes associated with conversion therapy as a whole; however, the Supreme Court’s ruling will allow more than just Chiles to perform conversion therapy-esque treatments, meaning that those who take more extreme and abusive approaches to conversion therapy may be put under less scrutiny. Her response also ignores the aforementioned effects that even talk therapy can have.

Now that the history of conversion therapy and its modern relevance are understood, the most important question remains. What does this mean for Coloradans and Americans in general? As mentioned, extreme cases of conversion therapy that involve using physical violence and depriving patients of food are still in practice, and this may become more permissible under this Supreme Court ruling. Similarly, psychologically damaging talk and group therapy will likely become legal and subsequently more common in Colorado. It is likely that this ruling will affect similar protection against conversion therapy in other states.

Parents of LGBTQIA+ and especially trans kids should be aware of this and make sure that if they aim to get support for their child, that it is safe and supportive, as conversion talk therapists could realistically try to convert a kid without the knowledge of the patient or parent. LGBTQIA+ kids themselves should similarly make sure they have an affirming support system and that they trust anyone they are seeking mental health help from.