Adobe Stock
A coalition of religious liberty advocates is urging the Supreme Court to overturn Colorado’s ban on so-called “conversion therapy,” arguing the law imposes progressive theological values while suppressing traditional religious beliefs.
In a June 13 amicus brief, the Religious Freedom Institute (RFI), alongside the Manhattan Institute, the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty, and Orthodox Jewish and Muslim therapists, backed Christian counselor Kaley Chiles in her legal challenge to the law. The groups argue the statute violates the First Amendment by restricting religiously motivated speech and discriminating against traditional beliefs on sex and gender.
Colorado’s 2019 law bars licensed therapists from any treatment that “attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity,” including efforts to reduce “gender expressions” or “eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”
However, it explicitly allows counseling that affirms or encourages LGBT identity, allowing therapists to provide “acceptance, support, and understanding” or “identity exploration and development.”
RFI Director of Islam and Religious Freedom Ismali Royer commented on the law in a June 13 report.
“In other words,” Royer wrote, “through the magic of definition, Colorado renders any therapy aimed at changing unwanted ‘behaviors or gender expressions’ the equivalent of lobotomies and electroconvulsive shock.”
Chiles, a Christian, argued that the law prevents her from providing clients with faith-based guidance on unwanted same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria — counseling that aligns with her religious beliefs.
According to the brief, Colorado’s policy cannot be defined as neutral and unconstitutionally enters a religious debate.
“Colorado has thus taken a position in a dispute that is, among other things, religious,” the coalition wrote in the brief. “[B]ut the law here regulates private speech and thus cannot be regarded as neutral.”
The law, they argue, is implicitly hostile toward traditional Jewish, Christian, and Muslim moral teachings, while carving out protections for “affirming” therapies that reflect the values of progressive faith groups.
“Denying clients this service is contradictory to our very mission to elevate human suffering and contradicts our code of ethics because we are saying they are not entitled to help, in essence imposing another set of values on them,” said a licensed Muslim therapist quoted in the brief.
Chiles previously lost her case in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, but the Supreme Court agreed in March to hear her appeal.
According to the RFI report, a ruling — expected June 2026 — could have major implications for the other 22 states with similar laws.
