Ryan McCormack

May 16, 2026

Introduction

On March 10, 2025, the United States Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari regarding the constitutionality of Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law (MCTL), meaning there was a request to review the decision of the MCTL that was made by a lower court. The court is expected to reach a verdict by late June of 2026, as the case is still being decided. The Minor Conversion Therapy Law forbids licensed mental health professionals from practicing, participating in, or providing conversion therapy to individuals under the age of 18 [3]. Conversion therapy, by definition, is a therapeutic tactic to “convert” queer individuals so they feel comfortable with being heterosexual and cisgender–the gender one is assigned at birth.    

Origin of Minor Conversion Therapy Law

In May of 2019, House Bill 19-1129 was signed into law by Governor of Colorado Jared Polis, the first openly gay man to be elected governor in the United States. This law prohibits the use of conversion therapy for those under eighteen years of age. Colorado became the 18th state to ban conversion therapy through the work of State Senator Dafna Michaelson Jenet, State Representative Daneya Esgar, and Senator Steve Fenberg. Senator Esgar was one of the original strategists for the ban while Senator Jenet promoted this law to the public. This bill states that any licensed mental health professional is not allowed to perform any variation of conversion therapy on anyone under eighteen. This bill was introduced in 2015, but initially failed to gain the legislative majority [1].  In order for this law to receive bipartisan support, it had to be seen from a procedural perspective as opposed to a subjective social opinion. Supplementary to the shift in presentation, Democrats utilized established clinical support, citing the American Medical Association,  American Psychological Association, and American Academy of Pediatrics all scientifically deem conversion therapy ineffectual, due to the negative mental health impacts conversion therapy may cause. The adjustment in delivery of the bill, alongside the more LGBTQ+ friendly atmosphere, and with support of Governor Polis that influenced House Representatives Colin Larson and Hugh McKeen beside Senators Don Coram, Senator Kevin Priola, and Senator Jack Tate to pass the bill, marking a major turn for the future of emerging social issues [1]. 

Clinical Foundations & Medical Consensus

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice found evidence to support the harm that conversion therapy causes. In 2020, the review overviews the similar findings across multiple reports: an increase in depression in accordance with a negative effect on relationship stability (American Psychological Association, 2025). Conversion therapy is sometimes referred to as “reparative therapy”, which aims to change sexual orientation in a therapeutic setting. The American Psychological Association (APA) conducted a review in 2007 about the effectiveness of conversion therapy. Through this review, it was found that there is minimal statistically relevant data pointing towards goal-achieving change. It was determined that it is scientifically doubtful that queer individuals would change their sexual orientation to become straight due to conversion therapy. Conversion therapy carries a lot of stigma surrounding the association of being queer with mental illness, assuming that conversion therapy, just as any other therapy, would help “cure” queer people. Conversion therapy is often the consequence of familial rejection; when an individual expresses a queer gender identity/sexual orientation, their family opposes this, leading to an attempted “solution”. According to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), individuals who have been shunned due to their queer identity are eight times more likely to attempt suicide, three times more likely to abuse illegal substances, and are at triple the risk of attaining HIV and other STDs [2]. The American Psychological Association solidifies the generalized findings across many psychological committees across the country: not only is conversion therapy useless, but evidence suggests that it clinically diminishes a queer individual’s mental health [2].

Statuary Integration

The Minor Conversion Therapy Law was applied to the already existing Mental Health Practice Act (MHPA). The MHPA was set in place to set clear limitations on what mental health professionals are allowed to offer as treatment with regard to their personal opinion The Mental Health Practice Act determined that public health, safety, and the overall well-being of the people would benefit from regulation to prevent “unauthorized, unqualified, and improper application” of potentially harmful and unnecessary therapeutic practices [4].  This ruling also states that there are disciplinary measures put in place by the state to discourage licensed mental health professionals from breaching this conduct. Additionally,  all psychologists and other people in the mental health field are mandated reporters; being a mandated reporter requires the clinician to report any statement that leads them to believe that the patient is a danger to themselves or others; a mandated reporter ensures the safety of the patient and the public. Outside of mandated reporting, therapists and other mental health professionals use their discretion as to what can and cannot be discussed in a therapeutic setting. House Bill 19-1129 addresses this discretion by making the specific conversation, advertisement, and application of conversion therapy illegal. 

Procedural History

Chiles v. Salazar specifically challenges the constitutionality of what House Bill 19-1129 declared only seven years ago. Kaley Chiles is a licensed mental health counselor in Colorado who petitioned this trial. Chiles claimed that Minor Conversion Therapy Law infringes her First Amendment right of freedom of speech. Patty Salazar, the respondent of this case, represents the state of Colorado as the executive director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA). Chiles believes that the MCTL is unconstitutional as it discriminates against specific views and conversation topics. It is argued that Colorado failed to meet the burden of strict scrutiny with the MCTL, as there is no specific state interest. Salazar argues the latter, stating that Colorado has the power to regulate and monitor professional content, including examples that impact freedom of speech. The respondent considers the ultimate impact that this case can potentially have on the state’s ability to regulate certain professions in general, as Chile’s plea is undermining the current Colorado law. With the possibility of the Minor Conversion Therapy Law being overturned, the possibility of a more general, unregulated industry in the mental health profession becomes a real threat [3]. Planned Parenthood v. Casey established the precedent for Chiles v. Salazar. In 1992, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of informed consent and specificity of professional medical speech. By attacking the MCTL, the concept of speech regulation in the medicinal environment  becomes increasingly threatened [10].

Petitioner

The petitioner, Kaley Chiles, earned a master’s degree in clinical mental health with a center of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), where she is qualified in all demographics of people, including trauma survivors, addicts, people struggling with gender and sexuality issues, along with other diagnoses. Cognitive behavioral therapy is a form of talk therapy, which takes a more strategic approach, helping the patient create a chain as to how their thoughts create a feeling, and in turn their feelings create a behavior, which reinforces the negative thoughts in the first place. CBT has shown to be incredibly effective in helping patients as it is efficient and goal-oriented; it also allows the patient to do the work on their own, teaching them the skill they will need post-treatment. Chiles, as a Christian, attempts to treat patients who align with her religious beliefs, although she is trained for anyone seeking mental health counseling. Due to Chile’s religious affiliation, she would often see clients surrounded by the same religious drive. By maintaining a similar devotion to Christian faith through her practice, Chiles does not believe that the MCTL is protective to her practice, but rather restrictive. Before the bill that banned conversion therapy in Colorado was put into place, Chiles often worked with children who she claimed set the goal for themselves to change their sexuality. Chiles contends as though this law limits the extent to which she can openly engage with her clients due to fear of losing her license. Chiles alludes that her clients come to her with specific requests to change their sexual or gender orientation in order to fall in line with their beliefs, and she states that she is no longer adequately allowed to provide that care. 

Regulation Framework and Enforcement

Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law, House Bill 19-1129, bans “any practice or treatment that attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity” [3]. This law applies to licensed medical professionals, leaving no enforcement for counseling in a religious context as there are no state licensed clinicians. As the MCTL is a regulatory law, the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies determines what specific board will be best equipped to determine disciplinary action. If the MCTL were to be violated, the monetary punishment could be a fine of up to $5,000 per violation. Colorado has the ability to suspend, or even revoke the licence of the mental health professional. Additionally, Colorado will also send cease-and-desist orders with the potential for the mental health clinician to be placed on probation if they violate the MCTL [11]. 

Constitutional Argument

Kaley Chiles filed a lawsuit in September of 2022. She believes that the law that had been enacted limited her Free Speech and Free Exercise; she filed the lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows individuals to sue state or local governments for violating constitutional or federal rights (Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights, n.d.). The legislative records concluded that conversion therapy’s risks and potential harms outweigh the possible benefits. There are some practitioners that claim they have successful cases where they have changed someone’s sexual orientation, but over 47 studies prove otherwise [16]. Medically, conversion therapy is inadequate when attempting to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Using the records and briefs, the court ruled that there was no satisfactory support demonstrating the effectiveness of conversion therapy [12].  This lawsuit was originally dismissed, and upon appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit agreed that the Minor Conversion Therapy Law that banned conversion therapy in the state of Colorado remained in place as a demonstration of professional conduct and statutory authority to protect individuals receiving mental health care from a licensed professional. Patty Salazar’s purpose was to defend the lower court’s ruling, as she is the Executive Director of DORA. Salazar presented sufficient evidence disproving Chiles’s claim that she is targeted with this law; the court’s proceedings remained that the law is neutral and provides equal protection, as the standard of care being placed onto Chiles is also being placed on all licensed mental health professionals [3].

Chiles filed for a writ of certiorari, requesting the case be seen by the United States Supreme Court, two years later in an attempt to appeal the decision made in 2022. The court granted Chiles certiorari, and decided to review the case further, on March 10, 2025. The petition begs the question: Does the ban on conversion therapy in Colorado violate mental health practitioners’ constitutional First Amendment right [3]? 

Viewpoint Discrimination vs. State Interest

The petitioner filed this lawsuit under the presumption that it is inherently unfair and unconstitutional. Chiles argues that the MCTL does not place restrictions on encouraging sexual identities and gender transitioning, but instead places a negative light on encouraging children to embrace who they are biologically. She suggests that the subjective nature of this law demonstrates unconstitutionality. Chiles brings up the point that conversion therapy is not the only harmful version of counseling, and gives queerness a preferential status in the legal realm; with this reasoning, the petitioner contends that the Minor Conversion Therapy Law does not fit the standard of state interest, and therefore should be overturned [3].

The respondent argues that the MCTL is indeed narrowly tailored to Colorado’s state interest. Salazar goes on to explain that this law protects minors from harmful therapeutic care. Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation (2009) supports the iatrogenic nature of conversion therapy, meaning that it causes more harm than benefit [13]. This paper was later reaffirmed in 2021, remaining consistent with new data [9].  Salazar utilizes the ever expanding legitimacy of counseling and mental health care, along with utilizing Chile’s lack of evidence to disprove that conversion therapy is inherently harmful and shows no therapeutic benefit. Salazar’s main point is that the MCTL only applies to licensed mental health professionals treating a patient. Circling back to the exceptions of the Minor Conversion Therapy Law, religious leaders and anyone not licensed and in a nonprofessional setting do not have to follow the restrictions. Salazar further elaborates on the tailored view of this law by explaining that only mental health professionals are not allowed to engage in anything that could be considered conversion therapy, but that does not put any restriction on any other person or profession [3].

The petitioner contends that the MCTL puts too much restriction and censorship on a vulnerable profession. Chiles argues that therapy itself is speech, therefore when therapists are limited in what they are allowed to speak about, it is limiting speech. She maintains the position that the MCTL inflicts a serious burden on the continual protected right of freedom of speech; Chiles claims that it embodies viewpoint discrimination as it is solely focusing on a single perspective of gender identity and sexual orientation.   Chiles asserts that speech does not lose its First Amendment protections primarily due to its position in therapy. Salazar contradicts this concept by stating that therapy is the same as any other medical environment, stating that there is a “standard of care” [3].  She also expresses that the MCTL applies not only to conversations, but any professional in a healthcare setting regarding inquiries regarding conversion therapy. Salazar’s main argument surrounds the idea that the MCTL is not based on viewpoints; it is centered around the most safe and effective treatment options for minors.

Perspective of Relevant Organizations

The International Foundation for Therapeutic and Counselling Choice (IFTCC) determined that Colorado’s ban of conversion therapy limits the investigative nature of therapy encompassing sexuality and gender. Backing Chiles, the IFTCC holds concerns regarding the potential impact on minors if they are exposed to queer concepts. The Anglican Church in North America also supports Chile’s position as they feel that there is a drawback directed at counselors focused on religion by prohibiting them to speak in alignment with either the children or their own faith [3].

The American Psychological Association (APA) and Faith Based Mental Health professionals (FBMHP) supported Salazar. They concurred with the fact that minors go through changes and fluctuations into adulthood, and attempting to change their sexual or gender identity can mitigate that necessary growth. FBMHP also backs Salazar, articulating that this law outlaws coercive intervention to prevent the harmful influence of conversion therapy. They also mention, in alignment with the narrow tailor of this law, that the MCTL in no way forces mental health professionals to support or reinforce the concepts of queer identity and sexuality. 

Comparative Analysis

The general response from other states can be empathetic with the principle, but do not support the cause. Twenty-seven states including California, New York, Massachusetts, Nevada, all have legislative bans limiting licensed professionals from practicing conversion therapy on children under 18 [14]. Other religious platforms support Chiles; they are convinced that people in a health care profession are subject to more judgement and rule following, which they feel can limit their ability to care. Even Washington D.C. upholds the same legislation aligning with other states; Law 20-174 prohibits any mental health licensed professional from utilizing therapy as a way to change a person’s gender identity or sexual orientation. Law 20-174 does not breach the free speech clause of the First Amendment, supporting the existing precedent behind Chiles v. Salazar [15].

Conclusion

For the time being, there are a variety of organizations supporting both arguments. For example, the International Foundation for Therapeutic and Counselling Choice and Anglican Church in North America support Chiles though this trial. Salazar is endorsed by the American Psychological Association and the group Faith Based Mental Health professionals. Both Chiles and Salazar are fighting for what they believe is best for the public interest, and arguing if their beliefs support or violate the constitutional right of Freedom of Speech of the First Amendment. and concurrently do or do not violate the constitutional right of Freedom of Speech of the First amendment. 

Sources

[1] Colorado’s Conversion Therapy Ban Goes into Effect Today. One Colorado. (2019, August 2). https://www.one-colorado.org/latest/colorados-conversion-therapy-ban-goes-into-effect-today 

[2] The lies and dangers of efforts to change sexual orientation or… HRC. (n.d.). https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-lies-and-dangers-of-reparative-therapy  

[3] Carter, V., & Hussey, O. (n.d.). Chiles v. Salazar. Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/24-539  

[4] Colorado General Assembly. (2025). Colorado Mental Health Laws | Divisions of professions and occupations. Mental Health Practice Act PDF. https://dpo.colorado.gov/MentalHealth/Laws 

[5] Cornell Law School. (n.d.). 42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights. Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983 

[6] SCOTUSblog. (2025, November 19). Chiles v. Salazar (conversion therapy). https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/chiles-v-salazar/ 

[7] Chiles v. Salazar. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved March 18, 2026, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2025/24-539

[8] Amunson, J. R., & Ottaviano, D. M. (2023, May). Chiles v. Salazar, et al. . American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/chiles 

[9] American Psychological Association. (2025, October 7). The evidence against “conversion therapy”: Insights from psychological research. https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/evidence-against-conversion-therapy

[10] Oliver, L., & Takashima, A. (2024, September 20). Colorado’s Ban on Conversion Therapy Withstands Constitutional Challenge. Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy withstands Constitutional Challenge. https://lawreview.syr.edu/colorados-ban-on-conversion-therapy-withstands-constitutional-challenge/#:~:text=In%20Planned%20Parenthood%20of%20Southeastern,before%20they%20perform%20an%20abortion. 

[11]  Colorado General Assembly. (2019). Prohibit Conversion Therapy for a Minor. HB19-1129 Prohibit Conversion Therapy for A Minor | Colorado General Assembly. https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb19-1129 

[12] United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. (2024, November 14). Kaley Chiles, Petitioner v. Patty Salazar, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, et al. Docket for 24-539. https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-539.html 

[13] American Psychological Association, Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. (2009). Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf 

[14] Movement Advancement Project. (2025). “Equality Maps: Conversion Therapy Laws.” https://www.mapresearch.org/equality-maps/conversion_therapy. 

[15] B20-0501 – CONVERSION THERAPY FOR MINORS PROHIBITION AMENDMENT ACT OF 2013. DC Legislation Information Management System. (2015). https://lims.dccouncil.gov/Legislation/B20-0501 

[16] What We Know Project, Cornell University, “What Does Scholarly Research Say About Whether Conversion Therapy Can Alter Sexual Orientation Without Causing Harm?” (online literature review), 2016.