Organizations supported by Donald Trump’s administration are pushing the Supreme Court to overturn state bans on conversion therapy for minors.
At the center is Chiles v. Salazar, a Colorado case that questions whether banning conversion therapy violates therapists’ free speech rights. During oral arguments this week, several conservative justices appeared open to that idea.
The therapist behind the case is backed by a Christian legal group with ties to Trump’s political network. The administration has echoed similar legal arguments, claiming that state bans interfere with parental rights and religious counseling.
Conversion therapy, also called reparative therapy, refers to efforts to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity through counseling or interventions.
Historically, conversion therapy included harmful and abusive tactics such as electric shocks or medication meant to cause nausea when someone expressed same sex attraction. Modern versions often disguise themselves as “talk therapy” or “faith-based counseling,” but experts say they still cause deep emotional damage by implying that being LGBTQ+ is wrong.
The American Psychological Association and every major U.S. health organization have condemned conversion therapy as ineffective and dangerous. Studies link it to depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts among LGBTQ+ youth. More than 20 states currently ban licensed therapists from using it on minors to protect young people from emotional and psychological harm.
LGBTQ+ advocates fear that if the Supreme Court sides with the Colorado therapist, state protections could crumble across the country.
Mental health professionals argue that conversion therapy bans are about safety, not censorship. They say these laws exist to protect children from practices that have no medical basis and can lead to lifelong trauma.
While Trump has not personally reinstated conversion therapy, his administration’s legal allies have taken positions that support dismantling bans under the argument of religious liberty.
As the Court prepares its decision, advocates warn that the outcome could determine whether LGBTQ+ teens continue to receive protection or face renewed exposure to a practice many consider abuse.
