Next month will begin the new Supreme Court term, which will bring a variety of cases. Given the right swing of the Supreme Court, LGBTQIA+ folks are likely dreading October 7th since it’ll focus on Chiles v. Salazar. The case pertains to the legality of conversion therapy bans – but what is conversion therapy, and why is banning it such a big deal?
Conversion therapy is a pseudoscientific practice of changing one’s sexual orientation or gender identity through aversion therapy, shock therapy, guilt, shame, and other techniques to convince their patients they are “cured” into being cisgender heterosexual. It has existed in some fashion since Sigmund Freud used his personal brand of psychoanalysis to argue queerness was the result of arrested development and childhood trauma – in its earliest years, conversion therapy used lobotomies and even testicular surgery.
By the 1950s, conversion therapy began to model its current form as aversion therapy took root. Individuals were given chemicals to induce vomiting or electric shocks to their genitals when they engaged with same-sex desire or gender ambiguity. When identities like queer and transgender are labeled as illnesses, the medical consensus is then to cure that illness.
When the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality as a disorder in the 1973 DSM, self-proclaimed conversion experts took over the field and offered varied methods ranging from talk therapy to actual exorcisms through their ex-gay ministries. Popularized conversion camps isolated individuals from friends and family for weeks while they were forced to pray, beat effigies of their parents, mocked, and told their identity was unnatural.
In 2023, The Trevor Project released the research publication It’s Still Happening, detailing the effects of conversion therapy as well as intentional moves by conversion therapists to avoid detection.
Most of the above techniques, including aversion shock therapy, are still used in modern conversion therapy. The “success rates” of these organizations have never been verified, and the entire practice has been denounced for decades as unscientific and inhumane. Instead, conversion therapy has been proven to have no actual benefit and poses a detriment since, quite frankly, it is physical, verbal, and emotional abuse disguised as “helpful” religion. There have been countless horror stories about conversion therapy’s accompanying psychological and sexual abuse – it’s even led individuals to commit suicide.
In 2013, Exodus International (a massive umbrella group for conversion therapy organizations) shut down after 40 years of operation when its president, Alan Chambers, admitted to being queer and stated it was impossible to actually change one’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
Learn more about the history of conversion therapy
There are zero jurisdictions in the United States that ban conversion therapy entirely. In every state, from California to Florida, consenting adults can undergo conversion therapy – although the practice isn’t recommended since conversion therapy is denounced by all major medical and mental health agencies. 27 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and over 100 separate cities have banned the use of conversion therapy and related use of government funding on minors.
Chiles v. Salazar centers on a 2019 Colorado law that bans the use of conversion therapy on minors. Kaley Chiles filed a lawsuit against the state under the argument that her First Amendment freedom of speech entitles her to perform conversion therapy as a mental health professional. Colorado’s law does not apply to non-licensed religious counselors; professions like pastors are allowed to perform conversion therapy even on minors as long as they do not claim their practice is certified by the state.
Until this point, lower courts have held Colorado’s law to be a constitutional regulation of professional conduct. But on the other side of the country, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit created a split regarding local conversion therapy bans in Florida.
Regarding the case, Advocate explains, “If the Court strikes Colorado’s law, the impact would be immediate. States from California to New York could see their bans fall. Parents desperate for answers might once again be funneled to providers offering false promises of ‘cures.’ Survivors worry it would also send a cultural message that the nation’s highest court has blessed a practice they know to be abuse. On the other hand, if the Court affirms Colorado’s authority, it could solidify the legality of conversion therapy bans nationwide and shore up states’ ability to regulate professional treatment even in a polarized political climate.”
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided in United States v. Skrmetti that individual states have the right to ban gender-affirming healthcare access to minors just as states have the right to ban abortion access. By that logic, states should wholly have the right to ban conversion therapy against minors – after all, these laws do not pertain to conversion therapy on adults or unlicensed religious counselors or clergy. Based on the logic behind United States v. Skrmetti, states should overwhelmingly have the right to regulate this practice.
That doesn’t mean the Supreme Court will side with Colorado, though, since the GOP cares little for being seen as hypocrites. Kaley Chiles is backed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, the far-right legal group behind many high-profile cases, arguing that conversion therapy bans violate one’s freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services is attempting to rebrand conversion therapy as “exploration therapy” amidst the administration’s countless attacks on LGBTQIA+ rights.
Colorado has argued that conversion therapy is a treatment, not a protected opinion – thus, it has the broad authority to regulate medicine and mental health, as determined during United States v. Skrmetti. Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, stated, “If the Court misunderstands these laws and strikes them down, it would be devastating. But after seeing the breadth of amicus briefs, especially from unexpected allies, I feel encouraged. If the Court does its job and reads them carefully, we have a very significant chance of winning.”