U.S. Supreme Court 8-1 decision Chiles v. Salazar It landed like a flashpoint in the culture wars, with some headlines declaring that conversion therapy had been “legalized.” Advocates warn of harm, while supporters call it a victory for free speech. But legal experts say the truth is narrower and more substantive.
Stay up to date LGBTQ+ News and Politics. Sign up for The Advocate’s email newsletter.
They argue that the decision focuses on the First Amendment technicalities of how Colorado wrote its law, while leaving in place the overwhelming medical consensus that conversion therapy is harmful. But it also makes it difficult for states to proactively protect LGBTQ+ minors from this practice.
“This is a First Amendment case, not about whether conversion therapy is effective or safe,” said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National LGBTQ+ Rights Center, in a press conference with reporters.
Ruling on speech, not science
Colorado law prohibited licensed therapists from performing so-called “conversion therapy” on minors. A majority of the court held that the law was unconstitutional because it regulated speech in a way that was not “viewpoint neutral,” effectively allowing affirmative counseling while prohibiting non-affirmative approaches. This difference, largely invisible outside the legal world, had consequences.
related: Children can be subjected to harmful ‘conversion therapy’, US Supreme Court rules
related: How Supreme Court conversion therapy case reshapes LGBTQ+ protections across America
“The court was solely concerned with the interpretation of the statute,” Minter said, stressing that the justices did not consider the scientific validity or harms of conversion therapy.
What the decision does not do
Despite wide-ranging interpretations, courts have not declared conversion therapy to be safe, ethical, or medically acceptable. “There is nothing in this opinion that supports conversion therapy,” Minter said.
Major medical organizations, including the American Psychological Association, continue to reject this therapy as ineffective and harmful. This agreement was hardly addressed in the opinion.
This judgment also does not absolve medical practitioners from liability. Legal experts at the briefing emphasized that injured patients can still file claims for medical malpractice and consumer fraud, a point the courts themselves have acknowledged.
headline risk
The 8-1 margin reinforced the perception that this was a decisive ruling that would bring about far-reaching, substantive changes, and in other words, settle a national debate. But legal experts say this reading is misleading.
Mr Minter said he was concerned that the numbers in the headlines would drive public perception more than the opinions themselves.
“We live in a world where people just look at the headline 8-1 and don’t understand what the incident was actually about,” he said.
related: The Supreme Court just gave new violent license to conversion therapy
Still, optics are important. The 8-1 decision carries institutional weight and suggests agreement across ideological differences. That could obscure the reality that the agreement here is limited to a technical legal framework and not the fundamental question of whether conversion therapy harms young people.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the sole dissenter, highlighted that gap. He warned that the ruling could “open up a dangerous can of worms” and pointed to the broader implications of strengthening speech protections in situations where professional conduct and patient safety are intertwined. Her dissent views the case not as a proper First Amendment dispute, but as one with potential downstream effects on public health and the regulation of qualified professionals.
What will change now?
Advocates say it will be harder for states to prevent conversion therapy in advance, shifting the burden to after-the-fact responsibilities such as litigation, licensing discipline and fraud claims.
Casey Pick, director of law and policy at The Trevor Project, said this means it will be “much harder to protect LGBTQ+ youth before real harm occurs.”
At the same time, the ruling leaves states open to retrial. Several justices suggested that laws written with more explicit neutrality in mind could withstand constitutional scrutiny.
“The point here is not that conversion therapy is currently ‘legal,'” Minter said. “It means that this particular method of regulation is being questioned.”
Experts say how conversion therapy is described, particularly when it is described as “talk therapy,” often obscures its real-world impact.
Therapist Dr. Julia Sadusky, who provided expert testimony in the case, said this statement was misleading.
“The young people I meet … are hearing things that increase their shame and make them feel like something is fundamentally wrong,” Sadusky said at a news conference.
She added that focusing treatment on changing identity can delay treatment for depression, anxiety and self-harm. “Their depression didn’t improve, their anxiety didn’t improve,” she said.
Sadusky pushed back against the idea that harmful treatment could be separated from speech. “Talk therapy can definitely be harmful,” she said, noting that patients have lingering shame and self-doubt.
What is missing from the court’s analysis?
For researchers and clinicians, the most shocking aspect of this ruling is what is being sidelined. Decades of research, including findings cited by The Trevor Project, have linked conversion therapy to increased rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide attempts among LGBTQ+ youth.
However, these harms were largely absent from the court’s reasoning. “Nowhere in the conversation was there any discussion of harm,” Pick said. For LGBTQ+ advocates, the result is a legally unstable and politically unstable situation.
“What the court said does not change the fact that conversion therapy remains harmful and ineffective, and that every major medical and mental health association in the United States condemns these practices and calls for their elimination,” Pick said.
Source: Advocate.com – www.advocate.com
