Supreme Court Case Could Shape Future of Conversion Therapy Bans

On October 7, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, a pivotal case that challenges the legality of state bans on LGBTQ+ conversion therapy for minors. The case originates from Colorado, where a law prohibits licensed therapists from attempting to change a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity. Kaley Chiles, a therapist supported by the conservative group Alliance Defending Freedom, argues that this ban infringes upon her First Amendment rights.

The AdvocateStraight Arrow NewsThe AdvocateThe AdvocateThe Advocate

Conversion therapy, often referred to as reparative therapy, has been widely discredited by major medical organizations, including the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association, due to its harmful effects. Studies show that individuals subjected to conversion therapy experience higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. Despite this, nearly half of U.S. states have enacted bans on the practice, reflecting a growing consensus on its dangers.

The Advocate

• Kaley Chiles: The therapist challenging Colorado's ban, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom.

The Advocate

• Alliance Defending Freedom: A conservative legal advocacy group known for its involvement in various cases concerning LGBTQ+ rights.

The Advocate

• Phil Weiser: Colorado Attorney General, who defends the state's ban and emphasizes the law's protective role for minors.

The Advocate

• PFLAG National: An organization that supports families of LGBTQ+ individuals, recently releasing a documentary highlighting personal stories related to conversion therapy.

The Advocate

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser stated, “This practice is harmful — it’s been banned on a bipartisan basis in Colorado and many other states,” emphasizing the need for professional standards in therapy. He also noted that claims made by ADF regarding state investigations lack evidence. In contrast, the Alliance Defending Freedom argues that the ban restricts free speech and religious expression.

The Advocate

Critics of conversion therapy, including Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson, label it as “an abusive, discredited pseudoscience rooted in shame, rejection, and fear.” They argue that allowing conversion therapy under the guise of free speech endangers the mental health of LGBTQ+ youth. Additionally, researchers Lisa Diamond and Clifford Rosky have accused ADF of misrepresenting their work to support conversion therapy, stating that their findings do not endorse such practices.

The Advocate

While many states have enacted bans on conversion therapy, the legal arguments presented by Chiles and ADF suggest a potential for broader implications if the Supreme Court rules in their favor. The case raises questions about the balance between free speech rights and the protection of minors from harmful practices.

The Advocate

A decision in Chiles v. Salazar is anticipated by June 2024. The outcome could significantly impact the legal landscape surrounding conversion therapy and LGBTQ+ rights across the United States, potentially setting a precedent for how states regulate mental health practices related to sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Advocate

• “they’re putting one therapist’s right to speak above the health and safety of millions of kids.” — Andrew Hartzler, survivor of conversion therapy.

The Advocate

• “This case could do some real harm to the very individuals we’ve spent our lives trying to protect.” — Lisa Diamond, researcher.

The Advocate