Colorado's Law Under Scrutiny
Colorado's 2019 law banning conversion therapy for minors has become the focal point of a significant legal battle, now reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. The law prohibits licensed therapists from engaging in practices aimed at changing the sexual orientation or gender identity of clients under the age of 18. More than 20 other states have similar restrictions, but Colorado's case, known as Chiles v. Salazar, has drawn national attention due to its implications for free speech and professional regulation.
The challenge was brought by Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor and practicing Christian from Colorado Springs, who argues that the ban infringes on her First Amendment rights. Represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, Chiles contends that the law restricts her ability to provide counseling consistent with her beliefs. The case, set for oral arguments on October 7, marks the third time in seven years that Colorado has been at the center of a Supreme Court case involving LGBTQ+ issues.
Arguments on Both Sides
Supporters of the Colorado law, including Governor Jared Polis, who signed it into law, argue that conversion therapy is harmful and ineffective. Polis has stated, 'many of these so-called therapies or treatments are counterproductive leading to lifelong issues with depression, even ultimately ending in suicide for some.' State Senator Dafna Michaelsen Jenet, a Democrat and one of the bill’s main sponsors, expressed concern over the potential Supreme Court ruling, saying, 'I’m very worried that the Supreme Court will not rule on the side of children who are being abused.'
Former Democratic Senate President Steve Fenberg, another sponsor of the 2019 law, emphasized the state’s intent to protect lives, noting that Colorado already regulates standards for licensed professionals. He argued that the ban aligns with the state’s authority, adding, 'I would hope the Supreme Court would agree that even in these polarized political times, saving children’s lives is something that we should all prioritize.' On the other side, opponents like Chiles assert that the law is an attack on free speech and religious freedoms for licensed therapists.
Additionally, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, along with a coalition of 21 attorneys general, filed an amicus brief supporting Colorado’s law. Their stance reinforces the argument that states have the right to regulate harmful practices without violating constitutional protections.
Broader Implications of the Case
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could set a precedent affecting similar laws across the country. If the court rules in favor of Chiles, it may undermine bans in other states, potentially allowing therapists to resume conversion therapy practices under the protection of free speech. Conversely, a ruling upholding Colorado’s law could strengthen state authority to regulate such therapies, prioritizing the protection of minors over individual therapist rights.
This case follows a pattern of Colorado being a battleground for LGBTQ+ rights at the Supreme Court. In recent years, the court has ruled on cases involving a website developer and a cake baker who refused services to gay customers based on religious beliefs. As the justices prepare to hear arguments, the nation watches closely to see how this latest case will shape the intersection of free speech, professional regulation, and the well-being of LGBTQ+ youth.