The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging a Colorado law that bans conversion therapy, a practice long condemned by medical and psychological communities.
Therapist Kaley Chiles argues that the ban infringes her First Amendment rights by limiting what she can say to clients. At stake is whether the state has the power to restrict certain speech in therapeutic contexts—even when that speech is deeply harmful, especially to minors.
Conversion therapy has been widely discredited: studies show it can cause severe emotional distress, depression, identity confusion, and even suicidality in LGBTQ+ individuals forced to undergo it. Many states have already banned the practice for minors. The Chiles case forces the Supreme Court to confront a question that reaches far beyond Colorado: Does the government have the authority to intervene in professional speech when vulnerable individuals are at risk?
This case comes at a moment of intense pressure on LGBTQ+ rights. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court declined to block a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors, signaling a more receptive environment to restrictions on trans healthcare. Meanwhile, two other high-stakes cases are making their way toward the Court—one concerning transgender athletes’ participation in sports and another that could revisit the constitutional foundations established in Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
These legal battles are unfolding against a backdrop of political strategy and public opinion. In Virginia, for example, Republican Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears has invested heavily in anti-trans advertising targeting Representative Abigail Spanberger, yet polling suggests that voters are largely unmotivated by these messaging campaigns. Virginians prioritize issues like the economy, healthcare, and education far more than debates about trans rights.
Spanberger currently leads her race by 10 points—evidence that such targeted attacks may be losing traction with mainstream voters.
Still, states continue to be battlegrounds for trans rights. In Arizona, a federal judge recently ruled that gender-affirming surgery can no longer be a prerequisite for transgender people to change their birth certificates—a meaningful win in legal recognition. The decision comes as Governor Katie Hobbs has pledged to veto any new anti-trans legislation.
Meanwhile, the Kansas Supreme Court struck down a restrictive 2023 law that barred changes to gender markers on driver’s licenses, asserting that lawmakers could not bind the state indefinitely to definitions tied strictly to sex assigned at birth. In response, two Kansas legislators are pushing for a special session to reinstate the ban and pursue gerrymandering efforts against the state’s only Democratic U.S. Representative.
Together, these developments suggest that the legal momentum on behalf of transgender rights may be stronger at the state and lower court level than on the national stage. If the Supreme Court upholds Chiles’s challenge and undermines bans on conversion therapy, it could open the door to renewed attacks on therapeutic and medical protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.
Conversely, rulings like those in Kansas and Arizona may offer guardrails—signaling that courts and communities remain deeply invested in preserving dignity and rights for trans people. As these cases proceed, the balance between constitutional speech claims and public safety protections will be tested in a way that could reshape the landscape of LGBTQ+ civil rights for years to come.
