The Supreme Court will hear a First Amendment challenge to laws banning so-called “conversion therapy,” which seeks to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

More than 20 states have such a ban, and the Supreme Court has previously declined to hear similar cases. However, on Monday, the court said it would hear the case Chiles v. Salazar.

The case stems from a lawsuit filed by a professional counselor in Colorado, Kaley Chiles, over that state’s law prohibiting conversations with clients younger than 18 that “attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Opponents of “conversion therapy” say that it leads to higher rates of depression and suicide. Colorado officials argue that they can regulate the medical treatment of patients and that a “professional’s treatment of her patients and clients is fundamentally different, for First Amendment purposes, from laypersons’ interactions with each other.”

Ms. Chiles, a Christian, is suing the state for its ban because she says it violates her First Amendment rights.

“Conversion therapy” can cover a range of practices. It can aim to get someone who identifies as gay, lesbian, or bisexual to identify their sexual orientation as straight. The term also refers to attempts to convince someone experiencing gender dysphoria to identify as their biological sex. 

The conservative legal firm Alliance Defending Freedom, representing Ms. Chiles, says that “many” of her clients seek her counseling services because “they share her Christian worldview and faith-based values.”

“These clients believe their lives will be more fulfilling if they are aligned with the teachings of their faith. Yet Colorado law censors Chiles from speaking words her clients want to hear because the government does not like the view she expresses,” the ADF said.

The legal firm’s general counsel, Kristen Waggoner, said in a press release, “The government has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors, nor should a counselor be used as a tool to impose the government’s biased views on her clients.”

She said that there is a “growing consensus” that “adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria need love and an opportunity to talk through their struggles and feelings” and that Colorado’s law “prohibits what’s best” for them. Meanwhile, she said the state provides “only one option for children dealing with these issues.”

The ADF takes issue with Colorado’s law as it “only prohibits counseling conversations in one direction.”

“For example, it allows counseling conversations that aim to steer young people toward a gender identity different than their sex but prohibits conversations that aim to help them return to comfort with their sex when they desire that,” the group said.

Meanwhile, it notes that counselors risk being suspended or having their license revoked if they violate the ban. 

Lower courts have upheld Colorado and other states’ bans on “conversion therapy,” as judges were persuaded by the argument that the states have the right to regulate medical professionals’ conduct.

In 2023, the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to a similar ban filed by a licensed marriage and family counselor in Washington. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote at the time that under Washington’s law, “licensed counselors cannot voice anything other than the state-approved opinion on minors with gender dysphoria without facing punishment.”

“Although the court declines to take this particular case, I have no doubt that the issue it presents will come before the court again, he said. “When it does, the court should do what it should have done here: grant certiorari to consider what the First Amendment requires.”

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Ms. Chiles, it could lead to similar laws in other states being struck down.

The court will hear arguments in the case in the fall.