Colorado’s recent Supreme Court loss regarding its conversion therapy ban highlights a series of legal defeats for the state in culture war disputes centered on First Amendment rights.
Colorado’s conversion therapy ban was recently struck down by the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds, marking yet another significant legal defeat for the state in ongoing culture war battles.
The ruling in the case of Kaley Chiles last week represents the third major rebuke from the Supreme Court in recent years, as the justices have consistently overturned Colorado’s attempts to enforce its own interpretations of speech, religion, and anti-discrimination laws. This decision adds to a troubling pattern for the state, following previous losses involving a cake baker and a website designer who successfully challenged state mandates that conflicted with their religious beliefs.
Conservative legal experts assert that these setbacks are not mere coincidences. Carrie Severino, president of the legal watchdog Judicial Crisis Network, commented, “Colorado seems hell-bent on enforcing its own new orthodoxy of thought, and the Supreme Court has had to come back time and time again to correct them and to remind them that the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and freedom of religion, even when the state may disagree with a person’s opinions.”
In its recent ruling, the Supreme Court determined that Colorado’s conversion therapy ban, enacted in 2019 by Democratic Governor Jared Polis, violated the First Amendment. The law specifically restricted talk therapy aimed at preventing minors from embracing their gender identity or sexual orientation.
In response to inquiries about the state’s legal trajectory, Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Jim Campbell stated, “The State of Colorado has shown an utter disregard for the First Amendment rights of people like Kaley Chiles.” Campbell represented Chiles during the Supreme Court’s oral arguments and emphasized that the state’s actions are indicative of a broader trend of disregarding constitutional rights.
In the case of Chiles v. Salazar, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that Colorado’s law discriminated based on viewpoint. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, described such laws as an “egregious” assault on the Constitution. He asserted, “The First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.”
The case revolved around Chiles, a licensed faith-based counselor in Colorado Springs, who argued that her practice aimed to help youths achieve their own stated goals, which could include counseling related to sexuality and gender identity.
Colorado’s defense of the ban rested on the premise that it was regulating professional conduct to protect minors from what it deemed harmful counseling practices. However, the Supreme Court’s decision followed a landmark ruling earlier this year in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, where the Court found that the First Amendment prohibited Colorado from compelling a website designer to create wedding websites for same-sex couples. This ruling was seen as a significant victory for free speech, reinforcing the idea that the state cannot force individuals to produce content that contradicts their beliefs.
That earlier decision followed the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, where the justices sided with baker Jack Phillips. In that case, the Court found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had exhibited unconstitutional hostility toward Phillips’ religious beliefs, a sentiment that has persisted in subsequent rulings against the state.
Severino noted, “The Supreme Court found, at least at the time of Masterpiece Cakeshop, that Colorado’s state agency was acting in a way biased against a certain set of beliefs, and from what we can see, that hasn’t changed in the intervening years. Unfortunately, each time the Supreme Court has corrected them, they’ve only doubled down.”
Terry Schilling, president of the conservative American Principles Project, remarked on the trend in Colorado, stating that Democrats in the state “will stomp on the rights of anyone who stands in the way of the well-heeled gay and transgender lobby, whether it is bakers, doctors, or desperate families.” He expressed concern that it should not require extensive legal battles or Supreme Court intervention to address what he termed the “liberal war against reality.” Schilling’s organization is actively working to pass conservative ballot initiatives aimed at protecting children from what they view as extremist policies.
Beyond First Amendment issues, Colorado has also been a battleground for other contentious legal disputes that have reached the Supreme Court. In the case of Trump v. Anderson, the justices unanimously reversed a state Supreme Court decision that sought to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential primary ballot over allegations of inciting an insurrection, ruling that the state lacked the authority to take such action.
As Colorado continues to navigate these legal challenges, the implications of the Supreme Court’s rulings may resonate well beyond the state’s borders, influencing similar debates across the nation.
According to Fox News, the ongoing legal battles in Colorado underscore a broader national conversation about the intersection of free speech, religious liberty, and state regulation.