The US Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on March 31, 2026 in Chiles v. Salazar, striking down a Colorado law that banned licensed therapists from providing so-called conversion therapy to minors.
The 8-1 decision, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, holds that state licensing authority cannot be used to restrict the viewpoints professionals express to clients—a ruling with sweeping implications for professional speech regulation nationwide.
What the Court Decided
The majority held that Colorado's prohibition on conversion therapy—defined as practices aimed at changing a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity—constituted viewpoint-based regulation of speech subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.
The state argued the ban was a legitimate regulation of professional conduct, but the Court rejected this framing, finding that the law targeted the content of therapeutic conversations rather than any specific action.
Justice Jackson's Dissent
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissenter, arguing that the majority's reasoning dangerously expands the First Amendment to protect harmful professional practices. She warned the decision could be used to challenge a wide range of professional licensing regulations—from medical informed consent requirements to financial advisory disclosures—by recharacterizing them as speech restrictions.
Implications for Other States
At least 20 states have laws restricting conversion therapy for minors. The ruling effectively renders these statutes unconstitutional as applied to licensed mental health professionals. LGBTQ advocacy organizations have condemned the decision, warning it will expose vulnerable young people to discredited practices that major medical organizations—including the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association—have classified as harmful.
Broader Free Speech Doctrine
Legal scholars note that the ruling significantly extends the reach of professional speech doctrine and could be invoked in future challenges to a wide array of healthcare regulations. The decision is expected to fuel additional litigation testing the limits of state authority to regulate what licensed professionals can say to their clients in the course of providing therapeutic, medical, and financial services.
Read next - Health
2026 measles outbreak | drug import tariffs | CDC testing pause | healthcare top concern | hearing gene therapy | cholesterol drug breakthrough | Title X funding | Iowa Medicaid tax | deep sleep hormone | BMI accuracy study
Science
Artemis II launch | forbidden black holes | Starship to Uranus | fusion plasma mystery | China R&D lead | dynamic DNA movement | quantum computer plan | magnetic field mystery | DNA robots medicine | ocean nanoplastics discovery
Birthright citizenship case | Section 230 lawsuits | Roundup cancer lawsuits | conversion therapy ruling | ISP copyright ruling | tariffs authority ruling | social media trials | Monsanto Supreme Court | talc asbestos verdicts | death penalty bias
