Back in 2025, on October 7th, the Supreme Court appeared to hear a case proposed by Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado with a MA in Clinical Mental Health, whose argument was based on whether talk-based conversion therapy qualifies as protected speech.

Conversion therapy is the practice of attempting to make non-heterosexual and/or non-cisgender individuals identify as cis and/or straight. Tactics to achieve this can range from talk therapy, all the way to various forms of abuse. Conversion therapy has been widely debunked as a practice, with the American Psychological Association saying it’s “largely ineffective and (poses) serious risks of harm” for patients. The Colorado Health Foundation, similarly, links the practice to higher risks of depression, anxiety, and suicide.

On March 31st, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Chiles. In the Court’s majority opinion Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, “Colorado’s law does not just regulate the content of Ms. Chiles’s speech. It goes a step further, prescribing what views she may and may not express… she cannot voice certain ‘perspective(s)’ the State disfavors when speaking with consenting clients.”

The case was then sent back to the lower courts, claiming that a lower court had “erred” in upholding it because the law “regulates speech based on viewpoint” when applied to talk therapy. The court did not rule on the actual constitutionality of Colorado’s ban on the scientifically discredited practice of conversion therapy, just passed the case along with orders for further deliberation. The decision could have implications for several states that have enacted similar bans, such as Virginia where therapists, John and Janet Raymond, challenged the law.

The Family Foundation, a conservative advocacy organization with a legal arm, represented the Raymonds in their case. “Counselors have free speech rights, just like any other American,” said Family Foundation President Victoria Cobb. “We were thrilled to be a part of ensuring that for Virginians, and equally thrilled now to see the Supreme Court acknowledge what our courts found.”

Other observers saw parallels between this decision and other state-level regulations that have entered cultural discourse in recent years.

Zoe Taylor, a family physician in Washington state and a former fellow at the Physicians for Reproductive Health advocacy group said, “What I think is so funny — not funny but like ironic — is that for decades there have already been dozens of state laws that tell doctors what they can or cannot say about abortion.”

“Doctors who provide abortions have been forced to tell patients things that are untrue, forced to give them pamphlets that say untrue things,” continued Taylor. “Doctors who work for the VA or the military hospitals are not even allowed to counsel on abortion. So, how is that not a violation of free speech?”

This seems to be another disturbing step in the direction of the anti-LGBTQ+ laws and restrictions popping up all over the country.