Abstract: Since 2012, individual states have passed laws prohibiting state-licensed mental health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy with minor clients. Despite the breadth of research undermining its efficacy and documenting harms, the practice of conversion therapy persists. State regulation of conversion therapy—and thereby licensed professionals’ conduct with their clients—has emerged as a contentious issue for the judiciary. Most significantly, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on the matter for the first time in 2026. In Chiles v. Salazar, the Court addressed a challenge to Colorado’s conversion therapy ban, confronting fundamental questions about this unsettled area of First Amendment law. With the Court’s ruling in Chiles now issued, the timeliness of this issue cannot be overstated. Although the Court has now spoken on the prior circuit disagreement, the stakes identified in this litigation persist and the decision carries significant implications for LGBTQ+ minors.
This Comment argues that the laws restricting mental health practitioners from practicing conversion therapy constitute content-neutral, incidental burdens on speech that are subject to—and survive—rational basis review. States have an important interest in safeguarding public health and protecting LGBTQ+ minors from harmful life-altering practices. This Comment concludes by reflecting on the urgency of this issue, contemplating how these cases and conversion therapy law litigation more broadly exhibit a recent resurgence of political and legal anti-LGBTQ+ efforts in the United States.
