Colorado counselors, parents say Supreme Court ruling on conversion therapy ban will have long-lasting effect on youth

Many Coloradans feel the recent Supreme Court case considering whether Colorado’s law addressing conversion therapy violates free speech will have long-lasting effects on the health and well-being of our children, but disagree on what that outcome will be.

On Tuesday, the court ruled in favor of a Colorado counselor who argued that the law banning conversion therapy for minors violates the First Amendment. The ruling reverses a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which found that the law regulates professional conduct.

Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law prohibits mental health professionals from any practice or treatment that attempts to change the child’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Tuesday’s ruling doesn’t overturn that law; it requires lower courts to apply strict scrutiny to its constitutionality.

For Steven Haden, a licensed social worker in Colorado who works with LGBTQ youth, the decision is alarming.

“The decision made today by the U.S. Supreme Court is deeply concerning,” Haden said.

“We are not talking about a difference of opinion here,” he said. “Conversion therapy has been associated with increased risk of depression, anxiety and suicide among young people, particularly for LGBTQ adolescents, who already face disproportionate mental health risk. So this decision removes a layer of protection that existed precisely because of the documented harm.”

Haden, founder of the nonprofit Envision, said Colorado’s ban reflected decades of research and the state’s responsibility to regulate licensed mental‑health professionals in the interest of public safety.

“The First Amendment protects a therapist’s right to hold personal beliefs,” Haden said. “It does not create a license to practice discredited medicine. A provider’s recommended prayer instead of an evidence‑based treatment for a broken arm would face malpractice, plain and simple. So we must hold the same standard across all clinical domains.”

Supporters of the ruling, however, argued that the state went too far by limiting the conversations that families and therapists could have during counseling sessions.

“I just think this is a win for the First Amendment,” said Erin Lee, a Northern Colorado mother. “This is a win for free speech and common sense and people in Colorado not being forced to hold a specific viewpoint in their profession.”

Lee said her family became aware of the law when her daughter, then 12, began feeling distressed about her body and identity.

“And so we as parents were thrown for a loop and took her to a therapist, thinking we need help just to talk to her about this,” Lee said. “She wants to be comfortable in her body, in her natal sex, and we learned the hard way that this law even existed.”

Lee said the therapists they encountered felt constrained by the law’s requirements.

“It prevented licensed counselors from being able to do their job,” she said. “It limited their speech in a way that they can only express one ideological viewpoint instead of addressing reality.”

Lee emphasized that the Supreme Court’s ruling does not require therapists to take a particular approach, but instead allows families greater discretion in determining which type of counseling best fits their needs.

“I think this will have real positive outcomes for Colorado families in that now everyone can take the approach that fits their family best,” she said.