Federal Court Upholds Colorado’s Ban on ‘Conversion Therapy’ for Children

The 2–1 decision said the law is valid.

File photo of a judge's gavel. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

A federal appeals court on Sept. 12 upheld Colorado’s law banning “conversion therapy” for minors, or therapy aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Minor Conversion Therapy Law (MCTL) allows officials to revoke the licenses of health care professionals who are found to have offered conversion therapy.

In the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, U.S. Circuit Judge Veronica Rossman wrote for the majority that studies and other evidence offered by Colorado officials show the therapy is harmful to minors, including increasing the possibility of suicide attempts.

“We thus have no trouble concluding the MCTL is rationally related to Colorado’s interest in protecting minor patients seeking mental health care from obtaining ineffective and harmful therapeutic modalities,” Rossman wrote.

The law bans “any practice or treatment” that “attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor, said in a lawsuit that the law violates the First Amendment rights of counselors and their clients.

Chiles seeks to honor her clients’ wishes, including their wish to “prioritize their religious and moral values above unwanted same-sex sexual attractions, behaviors, or identities,” the suit said.

Chiles has First Amendment rights to provide counseling consistent with her and her clients’ religious beliefs, and her clients have First Amendment rights to receive counseling free from Colorado officials’ viewpoint discrimination, it also said.

A U.S. district court judge in 2022 turned down a request to block the law as the case proceeds, finding Colorado has a legitimate interest in preventing conversion therapy and regulating mental health professionals and that the law rationally serves those interests.

Judge Charlotte Sweeney said the law is neutral and not biased against religious beliefs because it targets modes of therapy, not therapists’ religious beliefs or affiliations.

Rossman, the circuit judge, said Thursday that she detected no error in Sweeney’s decision.

“The district court did not abuse its discretion in holding Ms. Chiles has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of her free speech and free exercise claims and by extension, in denying her motion for a preliminary injunction regarding these claims,” Rossman wrote.

U.S. Circuit Judge Nancy Moritz joined in the ruling.

U.S. Circuit Judge Harris Hartz, the other judge on the panel that was assigned the case, said in a dissent that the First Amendment supports Chiles.

“The issue in this case is whether to recognize an exception to freedom of speech when the leaders of national professional organizations declare certain speech to be dangerous and demand deference to their views by all members of their professions, regardless of the relevance or strength of their purported supporting evidence,” she said. “As I understand controlling Supreme Court precedent, the answer is clearly no.”

A state attorney representing Colorado officials did not respond to a request for comment.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights was among the groups celebrating the decision.

The ruling “allows Colorado to continue protecting its LGBTQ children and adolescents from the dangers of conversion therapy,” Chris Stoll, a senior staff attorney at the center, said in a statement.

Alliance Defending Freedom legal counsel Cody Barnett, who is helping represent Chiles, said in a statement that the ruling was not correct.

“Counseling is speech, not conduct, and it must be treated as such under the First Amendment. 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,“ Barnett said. ”We will consider all options to stop the unlawful attempt of Colorado officials to ban someone’s speech simply because they disagree with the viewpoints expressed. All Americans should be allowed to speak freely and seek the best possible help they desire.”