Colorado law banning gay conversion therapy is consistent with First Amendment and protects patients from harmful substandard care, Weiser tells SCOTUS

Jan. 6, 2025 (DENVER)—A Colorado law that bans licensed mental health professionals from engaging in harmful and ineffective conversion therapy to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity is constitutional under the First Amendment because it does not regulate speech, but professional conduct that falls below the standard of care, according to a court brief the Colorado Attorney General’s Office filed today with the U.S. Supreme Court.

“In Colorado, we are committed to protecting professional standards of care so that no one suffers unscientific and harmful so-called gay conversion therapy. Colorado’s judgment on this is the humane, smart, and appropriate policy and we’re committed to defending it,” said Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser.

In response to a growing mental health crisis among Colorado teenagers and mounting evidence that conversion therapy is associated with increased depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, and suicide attempts, the Colorado General Assembly in 2019 enacted the Minor Conversion Therapy Law to prohibit mental health professionals from providing their patients with this unsafe and ineffective treatment. The American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, and other professional health care associations recommend against the use of conversion therapy due to the overwhelming evidence that it harms young people.

More than 20 states have similar laws banning conversion therapy, and no court has invalidated any of them. In fact, a federal district court in Denver and a panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Colorado’s law because it is consistent with the First Amendment and past Supreme Court decisions. Supreme Court precedent makes clear that the First Amendment allows states to reasonably regulate professional conduct to protect patients from substandard treatment, even when that regulation incidentally burdens speech.

Weiser said that the court should reject taking up the case and let lower court rulings stand because reversing the circuit court’s ruling would undermine longstanding precedent and states’ ability to protect patients from harmful professional conduct.

The case is Chiles v. Salazar, No. 24-539.

Document:
Colorado Brief in Opposition On Petition for Writ of Certiorari (PDF, opens in new tab)

###

Media Contact:
Lawrence Pacheco
Chief Communications Officer
(720) 508-6553 office | (720) 245-4689 cell
lawrence.pacheco@coag.gov