· 197 comments · Save ·
News & Current Events Mar 31, 2026 at 2:09 PM

Supreme Court rules against Colorado ban on 'conversion therapy' for LGBTQ kids

Posted by blackeyedtiger

Supreme Court rules against Colorado ban on ‘conversion therapy’ for LGBTQ+ kids
AP News
Supreme Court rules against Colorado ban on ‘conversion therapy’ for LGBTQ+ kids
The Supreme Court has ruled against a law banning “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ+ kids in Colorado, one of about two dozen states that banned the discredited practice.
🚩 Report this post

197 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
blackeyedtiger Mar 31, 2026 +2645
The opinion was 8–1 and was authored by Justice Gorsuch, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion, jointed by Sotomayor. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion. The ruling found that Colorado's law banning talk conversion therapy "regulates speech based on viewpoint" and is therefore unenforceable. > The justices agreed that the law raises free speech concerns and sent it back to a lower court to decide if it meets a legal standard that few laws pass. It's the latest in a line of recent cases in which the justices have backed claims of religious discrimination while taking a skeptical view of LGBTQ rights. > Counselor Kaley Chiles, with support from President Donald Trump's Republican administration, said the law wrongly bars her from offering voluntary, faith-based therapy for kids.
2645
SuppressiveFire Mar 31, 2026 +4669
“Voluntary” my ass. It’s voluntary as in the parents are the one who make the decision to do it. The types of parents who send their kids to conversion therapy are not giving their child any say in the matter, and will force them/threaten them to get them to comply.
4669
textmint Mar 31, 2026 +1629
The problem is I think under the law minor children have no rights.
1629
guice666 Mar 31, 2026 +427
> The problem is I think under the law minor children have no rights. Right here. This. The "voluntary" is the parents, not the child.
427
Illustrious-Dot-5052 Mar 31, 2026 +209
Absolutely incredible to see all this bullshit about "protecting the children" when it comes to requiring ID for Discord and YouTube, but when it comes to sending your children to abuse camps, suddenly the idea of "protecting the children" vanishes completely.
209
guice666 Mar 31, 2026 +76
Gotta get inside their head: they're trying to "protect [their] children" from the "sins of gay." To them, it's "love thy person; chastise the sin." That's how they get around their cognitive dissonance of "helping people" while simultaneously hurting the LGBT community.
76
JeezieB Apr 1, 2026 +30
Yep, this is the justification that my mother provides. "We love them and want them to go to Heaven, so we must not support their sinning." We don't speak.
30
Legal-Blacksmith9423 Apr 1, 2026 +8
The guy running the country raped kids with his buddy and they don't seem to care about that either.
8
rain5151 Mar 31, 2026 +689
A lot of it is this. Look how hard we have to fight to get kids vaccinated against their parents’ wishes.
689
YamahaRyoko Mar 31, 2026 +90
Fundamentally true. Our then tween would say "You guys basically own me like a pet" for putting blocks on certain apps, checking ed-line for missed assignments, etc.
90
NV1989NV Mar 31, 2026 +47
Your pet* said "you guys basically own me like a pet" FTFY
47
LeafsWinBeforeIDie Mar 31, 2026 +25
Depending on how that is treated will go a long way to 30 years of no contact or a great life long relationship
25
Jonathan_the_Nerd Mar 31, 2026 +43
[Tinker vs Des Moines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District) said otherwise. That case affirmed that students had free speech rights even while they were in school. I wonder what the current court would say about that issue? Probably depends on what kind of speech it was.
43
Real_Long8266 Mar 31, 2026 +15
Mahanoy is one of the more recent examples in the tinker line, if you want to read for yourself what they’d have to say. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20-255 Jackson wasn’t on the court yet but the rest is the same.
15
SolarBoytoyDjango Mar 31, 2026 +87
If children have no right to freedom of/from religion, then why do schools need to let them opt out of sex ed and the reality that great gay people exist?
87
outsidethewall Mar 31, 2026 +185
Parental rights over children’s education
185
Time-Maintenance2165 Mar 31, 2026 +22
What do you mean? That's still decided by the parents.
22
Careful_Farmer_2879 Mar 31, 2026 +6
That’s for the parents not the children.
6
-Nocx- Mar 31, 2026 +5
This is correct. Parents can go so far as to admit their kids to research studies without the kid’s consent.
5
TheGoverness1998 Mar 31, 2026 +585
Exactly. This is about allowing fundamentalist parents the ability to browbeat their children into not being gay. Because to these people, we got "turned" gay thanks to the liberal media, or public school, or whatever the f*** else, and we all must return to Jesus. They don't give a damn about their child's perspective on the matter. If they did, they wouldn't be considering this sort of "therapy" in the first place. As someone who history on the matter, it ***sucks*** having parents/family that don't accept you. You're in such a lopsided position as a kid in these kinds of situations. Having sit-down intervention "talks" like you're some ghoulish freak committing crimes, having funds for schooling threatened to be withheld, etc.
585
wswordsmen Mar 31, 2026 +168
Into pretending to not be gay. If they could be beat into not actually being gay that would mean beating is an effective "treatment" which it is not, nor has any other "treatment" for being gay.
168
Nightbird88 Mar 31, 2026 +77
Nor is it freedom of speech, its now child abuse (though I think the whole thing is child abuse and the science backs that).
77
countzero1234 Mar 31, 2026 +49
My dad's exact words to me seared into my memory "are you gay, because we could fix that?"
49
otakugamer123 Mar 31, 2026 +21
Omg that’s awful. I remember when I was a kid he said “if you turn gay don’t bother ever coming back” I already knew I was bi at that point.
21
badwolf42 Mar 31, 2026 +26
This court would have found the Elan school to be a free speech victim.
26
incongruity Mar 31, 2026 +29
> As someone who history on the matter, it sucks having parents/family that don't accept you. You're in such a lopsided position as a kid in these kinds of situations. A bit off topic, but as a parent, this breaks my heart. I'm so sorry you didn't get what you deserved from your family. I'm so profoundly saddened that the SCOTUS has now also failed kids who have nobody else to speak for them. What a shameful decision.
29
LeafsWinBeforeIDie Mar 31, 2026 +8
On a related note, canada has become a lot more accepting to immigrants who can show they have historical family in Canada, especially americans. If one no longer feels safe at home, there are two open arms to the north... to those who need it, come be free.
8
incongruity Mar 31, 2026 +6
That's so wonderful to hear (and it plays into the stereotype of Canada being this frozen tundra full of warm-hearted people.) In full disclosure, me and my family moved to London last fall. Not completely because of current goings on but they helped sway the decision, not gonna lie.
6
datCASgoBRR Mar 31, 2026 +87
I have to point out that the "therapy" in question is just outright torture. Colorado's law was a f****** miracle and the Supreme Court came and fucked it up for us LGBTQ people again. I f****** hate this country so goddamn much.
87
Mckooldude Mar 31, 2026 +69
I hate to say it, but legally speaking that’s all that matters. Unless you get emancipated early guardians make the decisions.
69
koenigsaurus Mar 31, 2026 +31
One of my childhood friends didn’t get to grow up because the only result of conversion camp was his suicide. It’s child abuse.
31
Unable-Log-4870 Mar 31, 2026 +12
Yeah, it’s voluntary in the same way that genital mutilation of day-old baby boys is voluntary.
12
cyborgnyc Mar 31, 2026 +4
Conversion therapy is considered torture because it uses cruel, degrading, and pseudoscientific methods—such as shame, fear, and sometimes physical pain or 'reparative r***' —to attempt to forcibly change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. It is condemned by human rights experts because it inflicts severe mental and physical harm, often constituting abuse or torture.
4
Wanna_make_cash Mar 31, 2026 +134
Surprised it's 8-1, that means the left leaning jusrices were also in agreement
134
MAMark1 Mar 31, 2026 +166
They wrote a concurrence that was different than the conservative wing's position. So they might agree that the Colorado law needs some changes/stricter review by lower courts but that the state's interest in regulating therapy to protect patients is valid and not overridden merely by claims of religious belief. These SCOTUS headlines never capture all the important details.
166
Throwaway74829947 Mar 31, 2026 +57
Sotomayor and Kagan joined the conservatives' majority opinion, they just also wrote a concurrence. Their concurrence basically just caveated that they might have dissented (or rather, may not have applied *strict* scrutiny) if the law were viewpoint-neutral - it was one of the shorter concurrences I've read in a case as controversial as this.
57
lexm Mar 31, 2026 +410
From NBC: Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that "the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country." It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
410
BillKlemstanacct Mar 31, 2026 +357
By that logic I should be able to advertise tobacco to minors.
357
Square-Key-5594 Mar 31, 2026 +193
Advertising and commercial speech has less First Amendment protection than other kinds of speech.
193
engin__r Mar 31, 2026 +204
Conversion therapy purports to be medical treatment. If states can’t ban people from doing medical malpractice, medicine as a field will break down.
204
wamj Mar 31, 2026 +80
My medical recommendation is for teens to smoke weed and do shrooms to prevent them from learning the gay and the trans.
80
GeneralDil Mar 31, 2026 +93
Eh. It's not advertising. It's just my viewpoint that kids should smoke
93
kosmonautinVT Mar 31, 2026 +39
I appreciate the courage it takes to stand for what you believe in
39
AscenDevise Mar 31, 2026 +6
They're standing for what whoever had them do it believes in (bonus points if they also agree), and it's very courageous when nobody can ever hold them accountable for anything. I would like to see where all the people who celebrated diversity and whatnot else when Sotomayor was announced to have joined the SCOTUS are now, and what they think, because she hasn't exactly been a win for anyone without figurative jackboots.
6
unaskthequestion Mar 31, 2026 +156
First, I largely think that the courts should stay out of an individual's health care decisions. But I think I understand the court's reasoning and why it was 8-1 (I haven't read Jackson's dissent yet). The problem was the CO law said it was permitted for the therapist to say they would help a patient accept a different gender, but it was illegal for a therapist to say they would help a patient accept their gender. The state shouldn't take a stance, it should be between the therapist and the patient and their family perhaps. The court affirmed that a state can ban certain medical practices that are not speech.
156
Time4Workboys Mar 31, 2026 +88
The court I think was being disingenuous and purposely dense. Therapy isn’t really “speech” as we understand it under the first amendment. It *is* a medical practice. The court’s decision, taken to its natural conclusion, would protect a doctor if he told a patient to take a lethal dose of something because *telling* them to do so is speech, “not medical practice.” I’m disappointed in the liberal justices. (I’m incapable of being disappointed in the righties because we already knew they’re hopeless.)
88
Kenichi2233 Mar 31, 2026 +50
8 to 1 makes this a relatively non partisan decision
50
Hrekires Mar 31, 2026 +1690
Some clarification about the ruling, > This decision applies only to talk therapy, not forms of "conversion therapy" that involve physical interventions (which are really abuse). It does not strike down Colorado's law on its face. Actually, it does not invalidate anything—it just holds that this kind of law is subject to strict scrutiny. https://bsky.app/profile/mjsdc.bsky.social/post/3mieefk62m22j
1690
Solstyse Mar 31, 2026 +804
Thanks, explains why it was an 8-1 decision. Personally I still find talk therapy to ungay your kid to be a crock of shit, but I'm relieved that this decision doesn't go beyond that. EDIT: I want to clarify that I don't support the decision at all. As an lgbtq person myself that was subjected to religious trauma, I understand that this is bad. I responded viewing it from that perspective. I am stating that I am relieved that the decision isn't more harmful. Not thankful, not glad. I expected worse.
804
SplitGlass7878 Mar 31, 2026 +280
It's still abuse that causes massive and lifelong trauma. 
280
Solstyse Mar 31, 2026 +140
I agree, but given how bad things are going I am relieved this isn't worse.
140
SplitGlass7878 Mar 31, 2026 +37
Ah that's what you meant. Then yeah, I agree. 
37
Solstyse Mar 31, 2026 +19
Sorry for any confusion. We're on the same page.
19
lylelanley- Mar 31, 2026 +17
I tried my whole childhood to not be gay. I’m in my mid 30s and still struggling to find myself
17
Gastroid Mar 31, 2026 +193
No wonder it was almost unanimous. The ruling was essentially against ambiguous bans, requiring specific language like 'torturing kids isn't cool but talking to them is'.
193
warau_meow Mar 31, 2026 +113
Talk therapy trying to force a child to change their sexuality or gender isn’t ok though, and causes lasting damage as well. Imagine being told you’re straight Alex, we cannot accept that and let you go to hell when you die so we are going to make you attend weekly “therapy” (ie biblical counseling) where they can have at you verbally for an hour every week until you’re 18 to try to make you be what we want you to be. Being told you’ll never be happy choosing a partner to love, that you must choose from options you are not attracted to at all, or damn yourself and your partner an anyone who supports you. It can be very damaging and life ruining still.
113
Wretched_Gourd Mar 31, 2026 +58
Yeah you gotta be obtuse to not see the harm in this
58
fauxzempic Mar 31, 2026 +13
What always concerns me with these rulings - and I know that "Slippery Slope" is an argumentative fallacy, however, it feels a lot like we're boiling a frog here. Like - you can see it in this thread. No one's saying anything that's particularly false when they say "well, at least it doesn't mean that they can do the violent conversion therapy." This, of course, almost makes normal talk therapy intended to convert a child seem pleasant and acceptable. That's a very troubling baseline being established. *** I'm not a fan of the "all or nothing" mentality a lot of folks apply to their politics. The "Kamala is pro Israel!" folks who stayed home must be thrilled to see Trump fellating Netanyahu all the time...but I have to think that a half measure allowing for talk therapy leaves the door open for a lot of bad stuff - or even a reversal on the more severe stuff (see Roe v. Wade being rolled back).
13
Tryknj99 Mar 31, 2026 +374
Talk therapy to change a child’s sexual orientation is also abuse, to clarify.
374
sosthaboss Mar 31, 2026 +128
Is it constitutional to make a law making it illegal for parents to insult and belittle their children? Probably not, even though it’d be nice. That’s how I see this ruling
128
Squirll Mar 31, 2026 +95
...there is a long list of crimes related to verbal abuse of others.
95
ABetterKamahl1234 Mar 31, 2026 +9
Shit, the current President is widely known for lawsuits and legal threats on things people *say* about him.
9
BravestWabbit Mar 31, 2026 +72
But it's not about the parents. It's about state licensed therapists. The state should be free to refuse licenses and to penalize those with licenses, who insult and belittle patients
72
iTzGiR Mar 31, 2026 +38
You don't need to be licensed in order to offer conversion therapy, and in fact, most people who do, are not licensed professionals. In reality, the vast majority of these "alternative" mental health "professionals" have almost no training, no oversight, and aren't licensed in any way. It's also why most of these places aren't covered by insurance.
38
BravestWabbit Mar 31, 2026 +14
What? The Colorado Law only applied to state-licensed professionals.
14
engin__r Mar 31, 2026 +17
I agree that a lot of people practicing “conversion therapy” aren’t licensed, but this case was specifically about a licensed therapist.
17
Rmtcts Mar 31, 2026 +55
There are plenty of laws against harassment and abuse, surely you don't think things can only be abusive if they are physical? 
55
engin__r Mar 31, 2026 +76
When it rises to the level of child abuse, yes, you can ban it.
76
iTzGiR Mar 31, 2026 +48
This is how it **Should be**, but not how it is. Almost no states have laws that would constitute verbal abuse as Child Abuse, or something you can call CPS over. As someone who works a lot with kids, and has to make a lot of CPS calls, they'll almost never do anything over strictly verbal abuse, as they don't consider it actionable. This varries a lot state to state, but there would be very little standing for this when it comes to actual law.
48
Jem1123 Mar 31, 2026 +116
Since it’s not linked in the article, here is the actual decision for anyone interested: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-539_fd9g.pdf
116
effortfulcrumload Mar 31, 2026 +12752
The satanic temple should open a conversion therapy camp for straight kids
12752
Slovic Mar 31, 2026 +3390
This. Just like in the 60's when Black Panther started to arm themselves all of a sudden guns were an issue.
3390
BassLB Mar 31, 2026 +1226
People forget or never learned that Republican Governor of Ca Ronald Reagan* (with support from NRA) pushed to get the Mulford Act passed to prohibit open carry in direct response to Black Panthers
1226
Faserip Mar 31, 2026 +674
He really ruined everything, didn’t he?
674
AnatidaephobiaAnon Mar 31, 2026 +468
He sure fucked up a lot that people seem to forget about. He's deified by the right yet the root of so many issues in this country can be traced back to him.
468
Aware-Row-145 Mar 31, 2026 +209
My brother-in-law goes straight into argument mode defending Reagan if you bring up any of his bullshit, sometimes even boiling down to a “well what have you done that’s so great?”
209
WoodenInternet Mar 31, 2026 +213
"Actively doing things that harm people is worse than doing nothing at all! The U.S. would be better off if he'd done literally nothing!"
213
TheWingus Mar 31, 2026 +150
That's why William Henry Harrison, who famously died 30 days into his term as president, still ranks higher than Trump on lists of greatest presidents.
150
darthjoey91 Mar 31, 2026 +30
There's only a few presidents that are arguably worse than him. Jackson, Andrew Johnson, and Buchanan. After his first term, I would have put him above Buchanan, with Buchanan being the worst because he actively let states secede. Trump 2 is really making a run towards being worse than Buchanan and sure looks to be making a worse civil war when he refuses to leave office in 2029.
30
volcanopele Mar 31, 2026 +10
yeah, if Trump just left it at one term, yeah, I think all three you mentioned would be worse. Maybe even throw in Bush Jr., Hoover, as well as Pierce and Fillmore. But yeah, with his second term, he is plumbing Buchanan level depths.
10
Slovic Mar 31, 2026 +82
I heard it put this way once "Reagan was the Trump of the 80's". I think about this a lot in how Reagan was the decline of the golden age of America and I look at what we have now. Especially since in many ways, its the same groups pushing the same agenda from then to now. Look at nearly every stat that is tracked for prosperity of the US. Nearly all of them started a downward trend in the early 80's.
82
Faserip Mar 31, 2026 +32
Reagan lowered the bar so Trump could stumble over it?
32
BearintheVale Mar 31, 2026 +53
Think of Reagan as a prototype— a well known celebrity with declining mental health and faculties easily used as a demagogic figurehead while bad actors dismantle and rearrange the rest of the government. It worked very well for their backers goals in the 80s, and it’s working fairly well this time. The only problem is that we’ve seen this before and the current bad actors are even more incompetent than even Oliver North was.
53
JohnBrownSurvivor Mar 31, 2026 +41
That's why they deify him. Do you think they deify him in spite of the fact that he did bad things? Have you met them?
41
MTFBinyou Mar 31, 2026 +29
Which isn’t giving me hope about our current circumstance
29
CallMeShaggy57 Mar 31, 2026 +38
Reagan was popular in his day. There was no mainstream Reagan resistance because generally most people liked the guy. There are people that lived through Reagan and eventually came around to seeing what a POS he was back in the day. Trump has never been popular. He will be seen as a national embarrassment for decades if not centuries once all the dust finally clears from the destruction his mere existence has caused.
38
SandpaperTeddyBear Mar 31, 2026 +10
> Trump has never been popular. Popularity has two axes though. And no politician, even FDR, has been as deeply loved as Trump is. *Fewer* people like Trump than liked Reagan, but the people who do like him outright *worship* him. I think there’s an order of magnitude more love for Trump than there was for Reagan in that sense. And based on the fact that there hasn’t been significant social pressure against committing acts of Trump-vote, and the Trump-voters have had no trouble recruiting new demographics (especially Hispanic men), while the stalwartly non-Trump branch of society has been inarguably losing ground since COVID (and arguably since the 2017 Women’s March), it’s safe to say that this isn’t changing. Until the Trump-voter is driven from society, this basic calculus won’t change. Any number of acts of Trump-vote, any rationale, any amount of enthusiasm.
10
Bersho Mar 31, 2026 +19
Watch HyperNormalization and you'll see how he's basically responsible for the middle east as we know it today.
19
sir_crapalot Mar 31, 2026 +47
That governor’s name? Ronald Reagan. Highly recommend listening to RadioLab’s miniseries “More Perfect” about each of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment episode is titled “The Gun Show.”
47
HarveysBackupAccount Mar 31, 2026 +10
I don't forget, I just never knew. Regular high school history class doesn't really touch that kind of detail, or at least it didn't 25 years ago
10
no_one_likes_u Mar 31, 2026 +78
The satanic temple isn’t like the black panthers.  The satanists just exist to troll and point out hypocrisy, but no one is actually getting religious abortions or sending their kids to in school Satan classes.  They’re basically like a more IRL Onion. The black panthers were not trolling, they were legitimately arming themselves, it’s why they actually caused that reaction from the government.
78
V2Blast Mar 31, 2026 +41
They're not "true believers" in Satan, but they do and will fight legally against shitty laws allowing religious impositions in government and school.
41
Bladder-Splatter Mar 31, 2026 +27
Your examples don't sound like negatives though, have you thought about joining the cause?
27
no_one_likes_u Mar 31, 2026 +33
I’m not saying they’re negatives, I’m just saying, the basis of the organization is basically to poke fun. The black panthers were not joking.  It’s why the satanists generate eye rolls and the black panthers were being assassinated.
33
Slovic Mar 31, 2026 +5
Right, I was just pointing out the similarities in how the government acts, more specifically bigoted Republicans.
5
perdy_mama Mar 31, 2026 +785
No, the should have a conversion for Christians kids. These camps aren’t for anyone except bigoted Christian parents.
785
work-school-account Mar 31, 2026 +214
There's a group called "Deconstruction Doulas" that helps deprogram people from Evangelical cults. I smell a franchise incoming!
214
NemeanMiniLion Mar 31, 2026 +46
Ding ding ding
46
DownvoterManD Mar 31, 2026 +4
...and psychopaths that like to torture children.
4
Potential-Fan-6148 Mar 31, 2026 +138
Open it in Texas and South Carolina. Make the conservatives mald.
138
Dothehokeypokemon Mar 31, 2026 +77
They'd get firebombed real fast
77
Scaniarix Mar 31, 2026 +42
By nazi communists ofcourse. The far-right doesn't engage in acts of violence silly.
42
gazebo-fan Mar 31, 2026 +21
Lmao “Nazi communists”
21
ocxtitan Mar 31, 2026 +16
tHeY wErE sOcIaLiSt!
16
Pete_Iredale Mar 31, 2026 +5
Sadly many, many people don't understand why this is funny.
5
ProtoJazz Mar 31, 2026 +29
Hell, I'd try one for adults. I'm picturing more like a campground where you go, have a few drinks, and experiment. The more I'm thinking about this, the more I'm realizing I'm just picturing camping at a music festival or other event. So they may not have to open or do anything
29
arby233 Mar 31, 2026 +17
it’s called a burn
17
ALilMoreThanNothing Mar 31, 2026 +55
My immediate thought was a Christian conversion camp
55
Jay__Riemenschneider Mar 31, 2026 +22
Oh that’s better We want to actually help kids, not force them to be someone they’re not.
22
ChicagoAuPair Mar 31, 2026 +15
>conversion *deprogramming Satanic Temple doesn’t actually believe in actual Satan because they aren’t f****** insane.
15
P0Rt1ng4Duty Mar 31, 2026 +79
The problem is that the right already thinks these camps exist. Or that public schools are operating as covert anti-straight conversion camps. So if we actually made one, they would use that as proof that the camps have existed all along.
79
Cheesie_King Mar 31, 2026 +104
That's not a problem. You don't cater to the delusions of unserious people.
104
Lemonwizard Mar 31, 2026 +34
The American political system absolutely caters to the delusions of unserious people.
34
arachnophilia Mar 31, 2026 +12
> The problem is that the right already thinks these camps exist. and they're called "colleges"
12
1footN Mar 31, 2026 +27
Also Colorado should create a 10 million dollar license fee to operate a conversion therapy center.
27
engin__r Mar 31, 2026 +42
The Supreme Court would happily ban that. They have no problem being hypocrites.
42
BrandenWi Mar 31, 2026 +9757
I've had crunch wraps more Supreme than this Court
9757
iDontSow Mar 31, 2026 +1767
It was an 8-1 ruling, which implies that the legal issue at the heart of the case had implications far beyond just conversion therapy (otherwise the liberal judges would have been unlikely to fall in line with the others). Sometimes, rulings that seem appealing on moral grounds can be weaponized to do more harm than good.
1767
UndoxxableOhioan Mar 31, 2026 +876
Yeah, it applies ONLY to talk therapy, not other forms like aversion therapy, shock therapy, or medication. Kagan and Sotomayor noted in a concurrence that if they could draft the law to be viewpoint neutral (e.g. not explicitly allow therapists to encourage transitioning), it might be OK.
876
the_unexpected_nil Mar 31, 2026 +162
As the dissent points out, no medical treatments are viewpoint neutral. The medical licensing board decides what the best standards of care are.
162
TwilightVulpine Mar 31, 2026 +75
Nevermind also that often transitioning is the treatment that gives trans people better psychological outcomes. Why shouldn't therapists be allowed to encourage that?
75
RDLAWME Apr 1, 2026 +6
This law banned counseling people against transitioning. Sotomayor and Kagen saw that this could be used against progressive causes if it wasn't struck down (like banning therapists from encouraging transitioning). 
6
tbai Mar 31, 2026 +27
Becaus woke
27
iDontSow Mar 31, 2026 +236
Thank you. I think out of the entire corpus of American constitutional law, the first amendment is probably the piece that is most regularly misunderstood by laypersons (and even many lawyers too). Content neutral vs. viewpoint neutral seems like a concept that many people have a hard time grasping.
236
Santa5511 Mar 31, 2026 +52
This is my first exposure to those terms. Can you ELI5 or post a good link to quickly learn what they are/ the difference
52
HorseLawyer Mar 31, 2026 +120
Content neutral laws refer to restrictions that are not based on the content of speech. Usually, this would be the time, place, or manner of the speech. For example, graffiti is illegal regardless of what you write. Viewpoint neutral does restrict the content of speech, but doesn't favor one opinion or side over another. So, if you want to, say, ban teachers from wearing headscarves, you also have to ban kippahs, crosses, Sikh turbans, etc. Viewpoint restrictions are therefore usually difficult to implement, because often the reason for the restriction is the belief that a particular viewpoint is wrong or harmful.
120
Santa5511 Mar 31, 2026 +52
Ah thank you that makes sense. Your horses are lucky to have you.
52
SillyPhillyDilly Mar 31, 2026 +52
He's an actual horse practicing law. Like Air Bud.
52
Santa5511 Mar 31, 2026 +19
The plot thickens
19
TheHumanCompulsion Mar 31, 2026 +8
🎶Back in the 90s, I had a very successful law practice🎶
8
Clw89pitt Mar 31, 2026 +7
Air Bud is a horse lawyer?
7
raulduke05 Mar 31, 2026 +5
Ain't no rule says a dog can't be a horse lawyer.
5
SomeDEGuy Mar 31, 2026 +47
This law specifically said "Therapists can say X. Therapists cannot say Y." This mean that instead of outlawing specific content, they were dictating which viewpoints were allowed over others. Content neutral laws focus more on the "how" of the speech rather than content. For example, that parades need a permit. These laws face a less strict test (intermediate scrutiny vs strict scrutiny). I'll admit I am not talented enough to come up with a specific way to rewrite this law off the top of my head, as I don't know all the specifics for how Colorado law governs medical licensing, procedures, etc... But someone out there likely could.
47
Practical_Dimension Mar 31, 2026 +40
That's because most people cannot put their politics aside and understand the broader free speech issue here. This was a textbook example of viewpoint discrimination barred by the First Amendment. As one of the concurring liberal justices noted, if the Colorado law here was upheld, laws banning gender affirming therapy would also be constitutional
40
BrooklynSmash Mar 31, 2026 +12
> "That's because most people cannot put their politics aside" > proceeds to talk about politics as long as it fucks over someone I don't like, it's apolitical
12
OrvilleTurtle Mar 31, 2026 +15
It also only applied to conversion therapy, which has evidence of harm. Therapists were allowed and able to speak to anyone about their gender identities including it being "wrong".
15
a_secret_me Mar 31, 2026 +20
But there are so many types of "talk-based" therapy. What if a therapist started counselling depressed patients to take their own lives? Protected Dietitian telling anorexic patients to eat less? Protected It effectively invalidates all forms of oversight over large swaths of medical care.
20
ScyllaGeek Mar 31, 2026 +39
This is only overturning the ban on talk therapy, on first amendment grounds
39
quinnwhodat Mar 31, 2026 +287
Haha this is incredible. Stealing and claiming for myself. Maybe I whisper "brandenwi" after, in your honor
287
[deleted] Mar 31, 2026 +78
[removed]
78
[deleted] Mar 31, 2026 +36
[removed]
36
willstr1 Mar 31, 2026 +40
I have (unfortunately) wiped with half ply toilet paper with more integrity than this count
40
NachoPichu Mar 31, 2026 +206
8-1 decision. Jackson the lone dissent. The argument is it violates free speech.
206
owlbrain Mar 31, 2026 +122
Jackson argument is very hypocritical of her other medical positions (abortions). Her position here is states have the authority to dictate what medical procedures (including therapy) are done, but then that would also apply to allowing state's abortion bans. Note: not saying either position is wrong, just dislike the hypocrisy.
122
PeaAccurate5208 Mar 31, 2026 +53
I won’t opine on whether CO’s law is poor written,it very well could be and hopefully it can be rewritten in order to pass constitutional muster and protect LGBTQ kids from harm. My issue is that every mainstream and reputable medical organization deems conversion therapy harmful and ineffectual. So does that mean a licensed medical professional can give out advice/care that their own regulatory boards have deemed harmful and under the guise of free speech,that’s ok ? There’s no malpractice involved? That’s concerning to say the very least.
53
FireworkFuse Mar 31, 2026 +1932
Torturing children in the name of God. Edit: Verbally berating a child into not being gay is still torture. Cope about it all you want.
1932
[deleted] Mar 31, 2026 +185
[removed]
185
Double_Cow_8238 Mar 31, 2026 +84
Oh let's not give them the benefit of the doubt that the torture is verbal. There is plenty of documentation that says otherwise
84
chrisbarf Mar 31, 2026 +41
not just berating. look up elan academy for a good look into the troubled teen industry
41
demonknightdk Mar 31, 2026 +24
i remember first hearing about this, then finding [elan.school](http://elan.school) its the first hand account of a guy who suffered through it, in a graphic novel form. It was a hard read..
24
chrisbarf Mar 31, 2026 +4
that read was soul crushing. i wasn't okay for a couple days after i had read it.
4
ActuallyAlexander Mar 31, 2026 +84
Abrahamic religions living up to their inspiration
84
name-classified Mar 31, 2026 +155
electroshock therapy verbal abuse PHYSICAL abuse abuse of prescription drugs r*** from the staff i mean....this is exactly what they wanted when they opened these things up. They want to torture and harm homosexual people/children. Also, f***, they want to f*** children and say they were asking for it.
155
edwinstone Mar 31, 2026 +6
So you didn't read anything about the case? Got it.
6
nopethatswrong Mar 31, 2026 +52
This ruling wasn't about conversion camps
52
Saneless Mar 31, 2026 +42
They already had church for this,
42
Toothlessdovahkin Mar 31, 2026 +42
There is no hate like Christian love
42
DeithWX Mar 31, 2026 +5
I watched interview with a guy who was sent there as a kid. I was practically screaming "how is any of this legal ?!". It's mind boggling and depressing. edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=056h0p-q7Vo here is the interview for anyone curious
5
shellexyz Mar 31, 2026 +14
Well, as the old saying goes, if you can’t beat ‘em, f*** ‘em.
14
bobbymcpresscot Mar 31, 2026 +14
It’ll be physical too
14
Zealousideal_Debt483 Mar 31, 2026 +426
seems like the same logic should apply to the drag show bans they keep trying to pass
426
nopethatswrong Mar 31, 2026 +33
Does it not?
33
GermanPayroll Mar 31, 2026 +19
Seriously, it’s like the same principle
19
YamahaRyoko Mar 31, 2026 +8
Correct. It is virtually impossible to ban clothes and makeup. I suspect in the end the supreme court will see it that way too. Just takes time to work it's way up the tree.
8
Reyna_girlie Mar 31, 2026 +112
Logic? Consistency? None of that matters. They want minorities dead, in hiding, deported or otherwise out of sight. Thats what all of this is. Thats why MAGA's dont even care much when they are hurt by these policies or economics or whatever, as long as the people they see as below them are hurt more
112
CowMooMan Mar 31, 2026 +47
It was an 8-1 ruling. Do you think Sotomayor and Kagan are MAGA?
47
GarryofRiverton Mar 31, 2026 +3
But the same logic *does* apply to drag show bans.
3
Modz_B_Trippin Mar 31, 2026 +86
>An 8-1 high court majority sided with a Christian counselor who argues the law banning talk therapy violates the First Amendment. A clear majority of the court is basically saying states don’t have unlimited power to control what professionals can say, even in therapy.
86
iDontSow Mar 31, 2026 +12
Yes? This is how the first amendment works. States don’t have *any* power to control what professionals say absent an exception such as fraud. Thats how the first amendment works. It doesn’t mean professionals can’t lose their license or be sued for malpractice for the harm they cause.
12
[deleted] Mar 31, 2026 +45
[removed]
45
ShawnReardon Mar 31, 2026 +160
Voluntary therapy and children cant be in the same sentence. The child isnt a free individual making these choices
160
DroidLord Mar 31, 2026 +16
Parents will force their kids to partake in these therapies and then say it was their choice.
16
ShawnReardon Mar 31, 2026 +6
For adults, if they want conversion therapy let them. Idk. I cant stop them. But kids need to be protected when they arent able to decide for themselves.
6
UBC145 Mar 31, 2026 +56
The 8-1 decision is what’s most interesting. I don’t know much about legal processes but was the law badly written so that it was very easy to challenge?
56
SomeDEGuy Mar 31, 2026 +19
The law was written that therapists could say X, but not say Y to their patients. Traditionally, these types of laws are seen as not being viewpoint neutral and trying to enforce specific viewpoints. There are narrow grounds where the government can do this, but it has to pass a test called "strict scrutiny" to do so. This case said that the law was written in such a way that it needed to be evaluated under strict scrutiny and sent back to the original court to be evaluated under this criteria. To clarify, Kagan's concurring opinion brought up the hypothetical of a state passing a law that was exactly opposite, where a therapist could only say things to change orientation to hetero and never say anything affirming different genders. Under the same criteria, this would be overturned.
19
JustafanIV Mar 31, 2026 +94
Yes. It was viewpoint discrimination which is a big no-no at SCOTUS. Colorado basically said "Talk therapists can't endorse conversion, only acceptance and exploration of their LGBT+ identity". Nice sentiment, very constitutionally problematic. Also, permitting the above from Colorado would implicitly sanction other states from passing opposite laws, e.g. "talk therapists can't endorse acceptance or exploration of LGBT+ identities, only conversion". This is why it was an 8-1, with Jackson being the lone dissent without even Sotomayor joining.
94
YamahaRyoko Mar 31, 2026 +35
>Also, permitting the above from Colorado would implicitly sanction other states from passing opposite laws, e.g. "talk therapists can't endorse acceptance or exploration of LGBT+ identities, only conversion". That's a good point. Slippery slope.
35
UBC145 Mar 31, 2026 +17
Right, that makes sense. Actually seems to be a good ruling then as the fallout from the alternative could be very damaging.
17
realityczek Mar 31, 2026 +6
If folks would take the time to read the ruling, instead of just react to a partial, often biased social media clip/headline they wouldn't be as upset.
6
Dixiehusker Mar 31, 2026 +30
That was my first reaction too. I thought this was going to be a stupid split down the aisle decision, but 8-1 makes me think that this was a legitimately bad attempt on Colorado's part.
30
YOLOburritoKnife Apr 1, 2026 +8
The good news is that ‘Conversion Therapy’ to make your straight kids gay is also legal.
8
icevenom1412 Mar 31, 2026 +32
Someone should start a conversion program to deradicalize MAGA.
32
JustafanIV Mar 31, 2026 +42
Even Kagan and Sotomayor joined the majority on this one. With an 8-1 decision, I'm inclined to actually believe the Colorado law was constitutionally problematic.
42
Aurelar Mar 31, 2026 +17
It was because it regulated speech directly based on viewpoint. Non-speech forms of "therapy," especially anything that involves physical intervention, is a different matter. Words can still hurt people though. I'm not exactly happy about this decision, but it's constitutional.
17
Bob_Sconce Mar 31, 2026 +4
To be clear, it was not overthrowing the entirety of Colorado's "Conversion Therapy" ban. The ruling was that when you want to apply the ban to "Talk Therapy," the first amendment applies and you have to apply what's called "strict scrutiny": Colorado can still win if it shows that (a) applying the ban to talk therapy is necessary to advance a compelling government interest, and (b) there is no less-restrictive way of accomplishing the same goal. This was an 8-1 decision; only Justice Jackson dissented.
4
Weightmonster Mar 31, 2026 +9
Just so you know, major mental health organizations like the APA, NASW, and ACA forbid this therapy.  You could report the therapist for ethical violations. 
9
RiseDelicious3556 Mar 31, 2026 +74
So many kids have committed suicide as a result of these conversion therapy programs.
74
Captain_Aware4503 Mar 31, 2026 +5
As I read it, they ruled the plaintiff had been banned from voicing an opinion, and this didn't have so much to do with forcing kids into conversion therapy. Spun that way its easy to agree with. So basically sending a someone to listen to an opinion is OK. But are those people being forced? that was not addressed.
5
t-mille Mar 31, 2026 +4
There is no end to the suffering. Conservatives have this country by the balls.
4
illinoishokie Mar 31, 2026 +40
The decision was 8-1, so this wasn't decided along liberal/conservative lines, with Brown Jackson being the only dissent. If Sotomayor and Kagan agreed the law as written violated the First Amendment, the legislation probably needs to be reworked.
40
OddPressure7593 Mar 31, 2026 +14
The SC didn't find the ban violated the first amendment, that wasn't what the appeal was about. The appeal was about whether or not the right legal test was undertaken by lower courts - in this case, the SC agreed that lower courts applied the wrong legal tests, and should instead examine the ban under "strict scrutiny" There are soooooo many people in this thread spreading bad information
14
Acrobatic-Sea9636 Apr 1, 2026 +8
The US is a shit hole.
8
HighlanderM43 Apr 1, 2026 +7
I’m so sick of this f****** ride, I just want off
7
JasonKPargin Mar 31, 2026 +17
I feel like no one is reading the article
17
SueBeee Mar 31, 2026 +9
These people are vile. All of them. F*** this timeline.
9
EMPgoggles Mar 31, 2026 +7
[ Removed by Listnook ]
7
hazbutler Mar 31, 2026 +8
Good luck if your parents are religious
8
← Back to Board