Conversion Therapy Under Fire: Will the Supreme Court Uphold or Overturn Bans?

Conversion therapy, a widely discredited practice aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, is once again under legal scrutiny. With the Supreme Court set to hear arguments in Chiles v. Salazar on October 7, 2025, the future of conversion therapy bans across the United States hangs in the balance. This case has the potential to impact the lives of countless LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly minors, and raises critical questions about the role of government in regulating healthcare and protecting vulnerable populations.

What is Conversion Therapy?

Conversion therapy, also known as “reparative therapy” or “ex-gay therapy,” encompasses a range of pseudoscientific practices that attempt to alter a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. These practices, which have historically included shaming, hypnosis, and even electric shocks, are based on the false premise that being LGBTQ+ is a mental illness or a deviation from the norm. Major medical and mental health organizations, including the American Psychological Association, have condemned conversion therapy as ineffective, harmful, and unethical.

The Harmful Effects of Conversion Therapy

The negative impacts of conversion therapy on individuals, especially youth, are well-documented. Survivors of conversion therapy often experience:

Mental Health Issues: Increased rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. Studies show that minors who undergo conversion therapy are more than twice as likely to report suicide attempts.
Psychological Trauma: Shame, self-hatred, hopelessness, and a diminished sense of self-worth.
Social Isolation: Rejection from family and community, leading to feelings of loneliness and alienation.

The Legal Landscape: A Patchwork of Bans

Recognizing the dangers of conversion therapy, many states and municipalities have enacted bans to protect LGBTQ+ individuals. As of October 2025, 27 states and the District of Columbia have implemented bans on conversion therapy, with penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment. These bans primarily target licensed mental health professionals, prohibiting them from engaging in conversion therapy with minors.

However, the legal landscape remains uneven. Some states, like Indiana, explicitly prohibit local-level protections against conversion therapy. In other states, such as South Carolina, the state budget withholds funding from municipalities with local bans, effectively deterring such ordinances.

Chiles v. Salazar: A First Amendment Showdown

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear Chiles v. Salazar signals a potential shift in the legal landscape. The case centers on a Colorado law that bans licensed mental health professionals from providing conversion therapy to minors. Kaley Chiles, a counselor in Colorado Springs, argues that the ban violates her First Amendment rights to free speech and religious freedom.

Chiles contends that she does not seek to “convert” her clients but rather helps them with their “stated desires and objectives,” which may include reducing unwanted sexual attractions or changing sexual behaviors. She argues that the state is imposing a “gag order” on counselors, preventing them from engaging in conversations that align with their clients’ values and beliefs.

Colorado counters that the ban regulates conduct, not speech, and that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting minors from harmful and ineffective treatments. The state argues that conversion therapy violates the standard of care and that the First Amendment does not bar states from prohibiting substandard healthcare.

Arguments For and Against Conversion Therapy Bans

The debate over conversion therapy bans raises complex legal and ethical questions:

Arguments in favor of bans:

Protection of Minors: Bans safeguard vulnerable youth from a harmful and ineffective practice that can lead to severe mental health consequences.
Regulation of Healthcare: States have the authority to regulate healthcare practices to ensure patient safety and well-being.
Scientific Consensus: Major medical and mental health organizations have rejected conversion therapy as a valid or ethical treatment.

Arguments against bans:

First Amendment Rights: Bans may infringe on the free speech and religious freedom rights of therapists and clients.
Parental Rights: Parents have the right to make decisions about their children’s healthcare, including seeking conversion therapy.
Individual Autonomy: Individuals should have the freedom to choose the type of therapy they receive, even if it is not supported by mainstream science.

Potential Outcomes and Implications

The Supreme Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar could have far-reaching implications:

Upholding the ban: A ruling in favor of Colorado would affirm the right of states to regulate conversion therapy and protect LGBTQ+ youth. This could lead to more states enacting similar bans.
Overturning the ban: A ruling in favor of Chiles could jeopardize existing bans and make it more difficult for states to regulate conversion therapy in the future. This could leave LGBTQ+ youth vulnerable to harmful practices.
Narrow Ruling: The Court could issue a narrow ruling that applies only to the specific facts of the case, leaving the broader legal questions unresolved.

The Role of Legal Professionals

Regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, legal professionals play a crucial role in protecting the rights and well-being of LGBTQ+ individuals. This includes:

Advocating for comprehensive bans: Working to enact and defend bans on conversion therapy at the state and local levels.
Providing legal representation: Representing survivors of conversion therapy in lawsuits against practitioners and organizations.
Educating the public: Raising awareness about the harms of conversion therapy and the importance of LGBTQ+ equality.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in Chiles v. Salazar represents a critical moment in the fight against conversion therapy. The outcome of this case will have a profound impact on the lives of LGBTQ+ individuals and the legal landscape surrounding LGBTQ+ rights. As the debate continues, it is essential to remember the importance of protecting vulnerable populations, upholding scientific integrity, and ensuring that all individuals have the freedom to live authentically and without fear of discrimination.