“`html<\/p>\n
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a Colorado state law prohibiting “conversion therapy” for LGBT+ minors is unconstitutional. The court found that this legislation infringes upon freedom of expression, siding with a Christian psychological counselor who had brought the challenge.<\/p>\n
Implemented in 2019, the law represents a trend among approximately twenty U.S. states aiming to prevent professionals from attempting to change a young person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. These methods often treat homosexuality as a disorder.<\/p>\n
Colorado authorities advocated for the ban, citing the harmful effects of such practices. They argued that these “therapies” are not only ineffective but also risk causing severe repercussions, including “depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, and even attempts.”<\/p>\n
Despite these concerns, the majority of the justices \u2014 six conservatives joined by two of the three progressive justices \u2014 determined that the law poses a constitutional issue, particularly in relation to the First Amendment.<\/p>\n
Kaley Chiles, the plaintiff, argued based on her Christian faith that the law restricted her freedom of speech within her professional practice. Her stance was supported by the Trump administration.<\/p>\n
In the majority opinion, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that “Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy does not merely prohibit physical interventions. In cases like this, it censors speech based on viewpoint.” He indicated the law controls the practitioner’s communications, dictating which opinions she may or may not express.<\/p>\n
According to Gorsuch, while the law allows support for patients exploring their identity or transition, it prohibits any speech aimed at changing their sexual orientation or gender identity. He identifies this as a form of viewpoint discrimination.<\/p>\n
The judge concludes by affirming that “the First Amendment acts as a shield against any attempt to impose an orthodoxy of thought or speech in this country,” emphasizing the significance of freedom of expression for every American citizen.<\/p>\n
Only progressive Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. She warned about the broader implications of the ruling, suggesting it might “open Pandora’s box,” limiting states’ abilities to regulate medical practices.<\/p>\n
In her dissenting opinion, she argued that “the Constitution does not prevent the reasonable regulation of harmful medical treatments simply because inappropriate care is delivered verbally rather than surgically.” Jackson raised concerns about weakening public health protections.<\/p>\n
Kaley Chiles\u2019 attorney, from the conservative group Alliance Defending Freedom, hailed the decision as “a significant victory for free speech, common sense, and families desperately seeking help for their children.”<\/p>\n
This ruling is part of a broader context marked by Donald Trump’s return to power in 2025. He announced that federal authorities would recognize only “two sexes” defined at birth, followed by an executive order eliminating public funding for minors’ transition-related treatments.<\/p>\n
Moreover, in a previous decision in June, the Supreme Court allowed Tennessee to ban transgender minors from accessing these treatments.<\/p>\n
Conversion therapies are widely condemned and often partially banned around the world. Numerous medical institutions, such as the American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, and the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK, denounce these practices.<\/p>\n
The United Nations also calls for their global ban, describing them as discriminatory, humiliating, and harmful to individuals’ physical and psychological integrity.<\/p>\n