Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

In a near-unanimous ruling, SCOTUS found that Colorado’s ‘conversion therapy’ ban discriminated by viewpoint — allowing pro-transition speech while silencing counsellors who affirm biological reality.

The US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on Tuesday that Colorado’s ban on counselling aimed at helping gender-confused children — popularly known as a ban on ‘conversion therapy’ — had violated a Christian counsellor’s First Amendment speech rights.

The decision throws into question similar laws across more than 20 US states and puts the spotlight on Australia, where three jurisdictions have enacted broad criminal bans on similar faith-based counselling.

The case, Chiles v. Salazar, centred on Kaley Chiles, a licensed Colorado counsellor who challenged the state’s 2019 Minor Conversion Therapy Law after it prevented her from accepting clients who wanted help aligning their identity with their biological sex.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, found that Colorado’s law did not merely regulate professional conduct — it discriminated on the basis of viewpoint.

“Colorado’s law addressing ‘conversion therapy’ does not just ban physical interventions,” Gorsuch wrote. “In cases like this, it censors speech based on viewpoint.”

The law, he found, permitted Chiles to express acceptance and support for clients exploring gender transition but barred her from saying anything aimed at helping a client reduce unwanted same-sex attraction or accept their body’s natural sex characteristics.

“As applied to Ms Chiles, Colorado’s law regulates the content of her speech and goes further to prescribe what views she may and may not express,” the majority held.

The court grounded its ruling in the First Amendment’s core prohibition on viewpoint-based censorship. “The First Amendment stands as a bulwark against any effort to prescribe an orthodoxy of views,” Gorsuch wrote. “Laws like Colorado’s, which suppress speech based on viewpoint, represent an egregious assault on both commitments.”

Jim Campbell of the Alliance Defending Freedom, who argued the case before the court, called the outcome significant for free speech. “It sends a message that viewpoint discrimination is egregious,” he told reporters after the ruling. “It is a really significant vote of confidence for the First Amendment.”

Chiles welcomed the result on behalf of the families she serves at her practice. “I am thrilled that the ruling will help struggling kids and families who are seeking professional guidance consistent with biological reality,” she said.

Conservative commentator Allie Beth Stuckey praised the decision as a victory for truth. “Everyone should be free to access care and counselling that points them to biblical truth and supports them in their struggle against sin,” she wrote on X. “True, damaging ‘conversion therapy’ is the kind that convinces kids they’re the opposite gender. Affirming reality to children isn’t ‘conversion’ — it’s truth-filled love.”

What the Ruling Means

Speaking with The Daily Declaration, Dr Paul Bedwell, Director of Youth For Christ Australia, explained that the ruling establishes a principle that has direct application to Australian law.

“The Supreme Court of the United States has drawn a clear line: governments cannot dictate which conversations are allowed based on preferring one ideology and criminalising another,” he said.

“What we’re seeing is a shift back toward important principles — governments may regulate conduct, but they don’t get to dictate our conversations or our thoughts.”

Bedwell said the ruling affirms what ethical counselling practice already requires. “We all want to prevent coercion and abuse, but ethically conducted supportive care must apply best practice: client-directed therapy. This is where an individual freely chooses the direction of their own therapy — even if that is away from LGBT identification.”

He pointed to scientific data that underscores the injustice of Australian laws that prohibit that choice. “The highest level of scientific data, including the Add Health study of more than 20,000 US adolescents, reveals that in 70% of adolescents, sexuality changes from LGBT to heterosexual without any intervention,” Bedwell said.

“The laws that lock this majority out of receiving any support are plainly wrong. This US Supreme Court ruling — in an overwhelming majority of 8-1 — has confirmed as much.”

A Lone Dissenter

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the Supreme Court’s lone dissenter, arguing Colorado was simply regulating healthcare, not restricting speech.

“There is no right to practice medicine which is not subordinate to the police power of the States,” she wrote, warning that the majority’s reasoning “opens a dangerous can of worms” for the ability of US states to regulate medical professionals.

Jackson’s dissent drew pointed commentary given her position in a related 2025 case. In United States v. Skrmetti, Jackson had argued that states have no right to ban medical gender transition procedures for minors. Her position in Chiles was the inverse — that states do have the right to ban counsellors from telling boys they are not girls.

This week’s ruling is narrow. It does not strike down Colorado’s law outright but requires lower courts to apply strict First Amendment scrutiny — a standard that the state of Colorado will struggle to meet.

The ruling will now return to the Tenth Circuit for fresh review under the stricter standard. Legal observers expect the Colorado law to struggle, while similar statutes across more than 20 US states face renewed legal challenges.

Australian Laws Under the Microscope

The decision arrives as Australia maintains some of the world’s most expansive speech restrictions on faith-based counselling. Three jurisdictions have enacted broad criminal bans that go well beyond clinical settings to affect pastoral care, prayer ministry and biblical teaching.

Victoria’s Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act 2021 is the most expansive. It carries criminal penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment and contains no clear exemption for faith-based care, even where a client has consented.

The ACT’s Sexuality and Gender Identity Conversion Practices Act 2020 applies broadly to churches, counselling and faith-based education, with no clear exemptions for prayer or pastoral guidance that authorities determine constitutes a “sustained effort” to change a person’s identity.

New South Wales’ Conversion Practices Ban Act 2024 imposes criminal and civil penalties for faith-based counselling and prayer. Anti-Discrimination NSW has confirmed that “praying with or over a particular person in an attempt to try to change or suppress that person’s sexuality or gender” is unlawful, and that the prohibition holds even where the person has voluntarily sought help.

South Australia’s Conversion Practices Prohibition Act 2024 is narrower. There, most expressions of religious belief are protected, though whether ministries helping people with unwanted same-sex attraction over long periods constitute an offence remains a question for the courts.

Queensland’s 2019 legislation restricts conversion practices only within regulated health services, placing most pastoral and church-based ministry outside its reach. Western Australia, Tasmania, and the Northern Territory have not yet enacted bans.

Dr Bedwell said the ruling should prompt reflection in Canberra.

“This raises serious questions about whether Australian lawmakers have any interest at all in protecting free speech, or whether they will try to enforce one ideology upon Australians and criminalise any other views — and all at the cost of a minority group that has been mistreated and marginalised,” he said.

“Those who have left LGBT identification behind do exist and do deserve the basic human rights that everyone else enjoys,” Bedwell added.

“I pray we learn the lesson and move away from the criminalisation of supportive care we have seen in recent Australian laws.”

___

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.