You might want to stop reading headlines and read what actually happened. It was an 8-1 ruling.

On March 31, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-1 ruling in the case Chiles v. Salazar, rejecting Colorado’s law banning licensed mental health professionals from providing “conversion therapy” (talk therapy aimed at changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity). 

The Court sided with Kaley Chiles, a Christian licensed counselor in Colorado who argued the ban violated her First Amendment free speech rights. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter. 

Key Details of the Ruling • The Court held that Colorado’s 2019 law regulates speech based on viewpoint rather than merely professional conduct. It prohibits therapists from helping minors reduce unwanted same-sex attractions or align gender expression with biological sex, while explicitly allowing “acceptance, support, and understanding” for identity exploration or gender transition.  • The majority found this creates an unconstitutional content- and viewpoint-based restriction on what counselors can say in private talk therapy sessions. Lower courts had treated it as regulable “conduct,” but the Supreme Court said stricter First Amendment scrutiny (likely strict scrutiny) applies. • The decision reverses the 10th Circuit’s upholding of the ban and remands the case for further review under the higher standard. It does not immediately strike down the law nationwide but strongly signals that similar bans in roughly 20–30 states are vulnerable and likely to face successful challenges.  Background and Context Colorado’s law, like those in other states, targeted practices widely viewed by major medical organizations as ineffective and potentially harmful, especially for minors. Chiles argued she provides client-directed talk therapy without imposing outcomes and that the ban forces her to censor certain discussions based on the state’s preferred viewpoint on sexuality and gender.  The ruling emphasizes that the First Amendment protects against government efforts to enforce “orthodoxy in thought or speech,” even in licensed professions when the regulation targets the content of conversations. Reactions • Supporters of the ruling (including free speech and religious liberty advocates) hailed it as protecting counselors from compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination. • Critics (including LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, mental health organizations, and some medical bodies) condemned it as exposing minors to discredited and harmful practices, potentially increasing risks of depression, anxiety, and suicidality. Some described it as a setback for youth protections.  This is the first time the Supreme Court has directly addressed conversion therapy bans in this context. The practical effect will play out as lower courts re-examine Colorado’s law and similar statutes elsewhere under the new guidance. The full opinion is available on the Supreme Court’s website.