The United States Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on March 31, 2026, in Chiles v. Salazar that Colorado's 2019 ban on conversion therapy for minors constitutes viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. The decision, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, effectively renders C.R.S. § 12-245-224 unenforceable and puts similar laws in 23 states and the District of Columbia on a constitutional collision course with strict scrutiny review.
| Key Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| What happened | Supreme Court struck down Colorado's Minor Conversion Therapy Law (MCTL) as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination |
| When | March 31, 2026 |
| Case | Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. ___ (2026), No. 24-539 |
| Vote | 8-1 (Gorsuch writing; Jackson sole dissent) |
| Key statute | C.R.S. § 12-245-224 — prohibited licensed therapists from practicing conversion therapy on minors |
| Impact | 23 state bans and D.C. now face strict scrutiny challenges; Colorado family courts lose a regulatory guardrail for therapeutic mandates in custody disputes |
Colorado's Conversion Therapy Ban Is Now Unenforceable
Colorado adopted its Minor Conversion Therapy Law in 2019 through HB 19-1129, codified at C.R.S. § 12-245-224(1)(t)(V). The statute prohibited licensed mental health professionals from engaging in any practice or treatment that attempted to change a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity. Violation subjected providers to disciplinary action by the applicable licensing board.
Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, argued the law violated her First Amendment rights because her conversion therapy practice involved only verbal counseling — what Justice Gorsuch called "perhaps the quintessential form of protected speech." The majority opinion held that Colorado's law regulated the content and viewpoint of a therapist's speech, triggering strict scrutiny rather than the rational basis review the Tenth Circuit had applied.
Justices Kagan and Sotomayor concurred with the majority but wrote separately to emphasize the narrow scope of the holding. Justice Jackson, the sole dissenter, argued the majority conflated professional conduct regulation with speech regulation — a distinction that has separated courts on this issue for years.
The practical result is immediate: Colorado's ban is unenforceable pending remand, and legal analysts widely expect it will not survive strict scrutiny review on return to the lower courts.
How This Intersects with Colorado Custody Law
Colorado family courts already navigate contentious territory when parents disagree about a child's mental health treatment during custody disputes. Under C.R.S. § 14-10-124, courts evaluate nine factors when allocating parenting time, including the mental and physical health of all individuals involved and each parent's ability to place the child's needs ahead of their own.
Before this ruling, the conversion therapy ban provided a clear boundary: a court could not order — and a therapist could not provide — conversion therapy for a minor, regardless of a parent's request. That boundary is gone. Family law practitioners should now expect three downstream effects in Colorado custody proceedings.
First, parents who disagree about a child's gender identity or sexual orientation will have a wider range of therapeutic interventions to argue for in court. One parent may seek a therapist who practices what was previously banned under the MCTL, while the other objects. Courts will resolve these disputes under the C.R.S. § 14-10-124 best-interest framework, which does not specifically address this scenario.
Second, the ruling arrives during an already heated legislative session. Colorado SB 26-018, introduced January 14, 2026, originally included language requiring courts to consider whether parents "recognize the child's identity as it relates to a protected class" when allocating parenting time. That custody provision was stripped from the bill on February 18, 2026, after Governor Polis threatened a veto. The Chiles ruling makes it even less likely that similar language will return in future legislation.
Third, court-appointed therapists and parenting coordinators in Colorado custody cases previously operated within a clear professional regulatory framework. With the MCTL unenforceable, these professionals face uncertainty about what treatment approaches are permissible when courts order therapeutic interventions for families in conflict over a child's identity.
The Broader 23-State Ripple Effect
As of March 2026, 23 states and the District of Columbia had complete bans on conversion therapy for minors, with 4 additional states and Puerto Rico imposing partial restrictions. The Chiles decision does not automatically invalidate these laws, but it establishes that strict scrutiny — the most demanding standard of judicial review — applies to any ban that restricts what licensed therapists say during talk therapy sessions.
Historically, laws subjected to strict scrutiny rarely survive. The government must demonstrate a compelling interest and prove the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. States including Illinois, Washington, and New Jersey are already facing legal challenges citing Chiles as controlling authority.
For Colorado residents in multi-state custody disputes — where one parent lives in a state that still has a ban on the books — the jurisdictional complexity just multiplied. A therapeutic intervention permitted under post-Chiles Colorado law may still be prohibited (at least temporarily) where the other parent resides.
Practical Takeaways for Colorado Families
-
Colorado's conversion therapy ban under C.R.S. § 12-245-224 is unenforceable as of March 31, 2026. Licensed therapists in Colorado are no longer subject to disciplinary action under this statute for providing conversion therapy to minors.
-
If you are in a custody dispute involving disagreements about a child's mental health treatment, your parenting plan should specifically address decision-making authority for selecting therapists and approving treatment modalities. Under C.R.S. § 14-10-124, you can request that the court allocate this as a specific decision-making responsibility to one parent.
-
Parents who want to prevent a co-parent from enrolling a child in conversion therapy should seek a court order explicitly restricting this treatment modality. The statutory ban no longer provides that protection automatically.
-
If your existing parenting plan references Colorado's conversion therapy ban as a basis for treatment restrictions, consult an attorney about whether modification is needed under C.R.S. § 14-10-129, which governs modification of parenting time orders.
-
Court-appointed professionals — including child and family investigators (CFIs) and parenting coordinators — will likely be developing new protocols in response to this ruling. Ask your attorney how your county's family court is handling post-Chiles therapeutic recommendations.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is conversion therapy now legal in Colorado?
Yes, as a practical matter. The Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling on March 31, 2026, in Chiles v. Salazar renders C.R.S. § 12-245-224 unenforceable. While the case was technically remanded for strict scrutiny review, legal experts widely expect the law will not survive that analysis. Licensed therapists in Colorado currently face no disciplinary risk under this statute.
Can a judge order conversion therapy as part of a Colorado custody case?
Colorado courts retain broad discretion under C.R.S. § 14-10-124 to order therapeutic interventions they determine serve a child's best interests. Before Chiles, the MCTL prevented courts from ordering conversion therapy specifically. That guardrail no longer exists, though no Colorado court has ordered such therapy to date and professional organizations including the American Psychological Association continue to oppose the practice.
How many states are affected by the Chiles v. Salazar ruling?
The ruling directly threatens conversion therapy bans in 23 states and the District of Columbia, plus partial restrictions in 4 additional states and Puerto Rico. Any state law that restricts what licensed therapists say during talk therapy with minors must now satisfy strict scrutiny — the highest standard of constitutional review — under the First Amendment framework established by Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion.
Does this ruling affect the SB 26-018 debate in Colorado?
Colorado SB 26-018, introduced January 14, 2026, originally included custody provisions requiring courts to consider whether parents recognize a child's identity. That language was removed on February 18, 2026, after a gubernatorial veto threat. The Chiles ruling reinforces First Amendment limits on government regulation of therapeutic speech, making it significantly harder for Colorado legislators to reintroduce similar provisions tying custody outcomes to parental speech or beliefs about identity.
What should I do if my co-parent wants to enroll our child in conversion therapy?
File a motion immediately under C.R.S. § 14-10-124 requesting that the court allocate sole decision-making authority for mental health treatment to you, or seek a specific court order prohibiting conversion therapy. Without the statutory ban as a backstop, you need an individualized court order to prevent this treatment. Document your concerns, gather evidence about the specific provider, and consult a Colorado family law attorney who can present the American Psychological Association's position and relevant research to the court.
Connect with a Colorado family law attorney through our Colorado directory for guidance specific to your custody situation.
This article discusses recent news and provides general legal commentary. It does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. Consult a qualified family law attorney for advice specific to your situation.