{"id":512932,"date":"2026-04-04T17:59:07","date_gmt":"2026-04-04T17:59:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/512932\/"},"modified":"2026-04-04T17:59:07","modified_gmt":"2026-04-04T17:59:07","slug":"scotus-rules-conversion-therapy-ban-likely-unconstitutional","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/512932\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS Rules Conversion Therapy Ban Likely Unconstitutional"},"content":{"rendered":"

On March 31, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States held that Colorado\u2019s statutory ban on conversion therapy<\/a> was \u201clikely unconstitutional\u201d (Chiles v. Salazar, 2026<\/a>). Conversion therapy refers to interventions intended to change or suppress an individual\u2019s sexual orientation<\/a> or gender identity<\/a>, typically by promoting heterosexuality or cisgender identity<\/a> and associated behaviors as the desired outcome. Major professional organizations, including the National Association of Social Workers, the American Psychological Association, and the American Psychiatric<\/a> Association, have issued policy statements rejecting conversion therapy, citing evidence that it is not only ineffective, but also associated with significant risks, including increased anxiety<\/a>, distress, depression<\/a>, and suicide<\/a> risk (ACA, n.d.<\/a>; APA, 2026<\/a>; NASW, 2026<\/a>). Colorado enacted its ban to protect LGBTQ+ individuals from these harms. Although the Court\u2019s decision suggests that such bans may be constitutionally vulnerable, the practice of conversion therapy remains inconsistent with core professional ethical principles, including integrity, respect for the dignity and worth of all persons, fidelity (serving clients\u2019 best interests), and nonmaleficence (the obligation to avoid causing harm) (ACA, 2014<\/a>; APA, 2017<\/a>; Barsky, 2023; NASW, 2021<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Conflicting Reasoning<\/p>\n

The basic premise of the majority\u2019s ruling in Chiles v. Salazar<\/a> is that conducting conversion therapy is a form of speech protected by the U.S. Constitution. The majority concluded that the Colorado ban on conversion therapy \u201clikely violated\u201d the freedom of expression of licensed healthcare professionals because it imposed a particular viewpoint on them.<\/p>\n

The majority did not make a definitive decision that the ban is unconstitutional, but rather, remanded the case back to the trial court to reevaluate the constitutionality of the law under the legal standard of strict scrutiny. This standard requires the trial court to evaluate whether the law serves a compelling governmental interest (e.g., protecting LGBTQ+ individuals from harm), and whether the law is tailored to achieve that interest using the \u201cleast restrictive means.\u201d<\/p>\n

In a concurring opinion, Justice Elena Kagan also suggested that the case should go back to the trial court to obtain a fuller factual record; however, she did not suggest that the ban is likely unconstitutional or that the ban must be reviewed according to the strict scrutiny standard. Given that the ban includes both conduct and speech, she suggested that further information was required before the court could determine whether the law was a constitutionally valid way of regulating the conduct of health professionals.<\/p>\n

In a minority opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson found that the law was a valid regulation of professional conduct, designed to safeguard people from a harmful intervention. She noted that there are many laws that regulate what health professionals are allowed and prohibited from doing in practice. She suggested that applying the strict scrutiny standard would be inappropriate for professional regulatory laws. She did not accept the argument that banning conversion therapy was a violation of protected speech.<\/p>\n

Implications for Practitioners<\/p>\n

Although bans on conversion therapy may be vulnerable to constitutional challenge, the issue remains unsettled and continues to move through the courts. Even if Colorado\u2019s statute is ultimately ruled unconstitutional, differently structured or more narrowly tailored laws might withstand judicial scrutiny.<\/p>\n

The fact that an intervention is legally permissible does not mean that it is ethical or clinically appropriate. Mental health professionals should be guided by their ethical obligations and the best available research evidence regarding the effects of conversion therapy. When clients (or, in the case of minors, their parents) request such services, practitioners should engage in thoughtful, nonjudgmental inquiry to better understand the underlying concerns and motivations. For example, clinicians might ask what clients know about conversion therapy, what they understand about the research on its effects, and what alternative options they have considered. Consistent with principles of informed consent, practitioners have a duty to ensure that clients are fully informed about the nature of proposed services, including their potential benefits, risks, and limitations (ACA, 2014<\/a>; APA, 2017<\/a>; NASW, 2021<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Rather than providing conversion therapy, clinicians can offer ethically appropriate, evidence-based alternatives, such as:<\/p>\n

affirmative individual or group therapy;
\nsupport in coping with stigma<\/a>, family conflict, or religious tensions; and
\nassistance with decision-making<\/a> related to their sexual<\/a> orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, without directing clients toward any predetermined outcome.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/p>\n

Although the Supreme Court\u2019s majority opinion appears skeptical of laws prohibiting conversion therapy, the Court has, in other contexts, upheld state restrictions on gender-affirming medical care for minors (United States v. Skrmetti, 2025<\/a>). The reasoning across these decisions seems inconsistent, creating uncertainty about how the Court will approach future cases involving statutory limits on the interventions that health care professionals may offer. In Chiles v. Salazar, the Court framed the issue as a potential violation of free speech, signaling that similar challenges may arise in response to other laws governing what health care professionals must or must not communicate in practice. For example, could a practitioner challenge requirements to disclose accurate information about the nature, risks, and benefits of proposed interventions on the grounds that such mandates infringe on professional speech?<\/p>\n

Ultimately, mental health professionals should look beyond legal permissibility when determining what types of interventions to offer and what to say to clients regarding treatment options. In addition to complying with applicable laws, practitioners are bound by professional ethical standards, including duties related to informed consent, honesty, and the duty to avoid causing harm. Even if courts were to invalidate Colorado\u2019s ban on conversion therapy, the provision of such interventions would remain inconsistent with established ethical principles and the best available evidence regarding the well-being of LGBTQ+ individuals.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"On March 31, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States held that Colorado\u2019s statutory ban on conversion…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":512933,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[59,57,58,50,56,54,55],"class_list":{"0":"post-512932","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-united-kingdom","8":"tag-gb","9":"tag-great-britain","10":"tag-greatbritain","11":"tag-news","12":"tag-uk","13":"tag-united-kingdom","14":"tag-unitedkingdom"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/512932","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=512932"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/512932\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/512933"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=512932"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=512932"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=512932"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}