Colorado’s Response to Chiles v. Salazar: Conversion Therapy and Free Speech

This blog was written by Jeff Oster of LWVCO.

In October 2025, I wrote about the (then-upcoming) Supreme Court case Chiles v. Salazar, which examined whether Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy was a violation of free speech. In March 2026, the Supreme Court determined that Colorado’s law did indeed violate the First Amendment, in a major loss to LGBTQIA+ rights. 

The Supreme Court’s decision reshaped how Colorado can regulate “conversion therapy,” especially when it involves talk therapy with minors. While the Court did not endorse conversion therapy or undermine the medical consensus against it, the ruling held that Colorado’s earlier statute impermissibly regulated licensed therapists’ speech based on viewpoint in the context of talk therapy. In practical terms, that meant Colorado could not ban therapists from advocating one side of an ideological question (in this case, LGBTQIA+ rights) while permitting the other (conversion therapy). 

Response to the Chiles Decision 

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, state leaders, including the Governor and Attorney General, publicly reaffirmed the harms of conversion therapy. They stated that Colorado would adjust the law to comply with the ruling while maintaining protections for youth.  

Meanwhile, advocacy and legal groups emphasized that the Supreme Court’s decision centered on free-speech principles for licensed talk therapy and did not dispute the medical consensus that conversion therapy is ineffective and dangerous.  

Colorado moved quickly on two fronts: maintaining protections for youth in a way consistent with the First Amendment and strengthening accountability for past harm. 

The Colorado Legislature's Response to Chiles

The Colorado legislature first rewrote the statute to be viewpoint-neutral so that conversion therapy protections could remain in place while meeting Supreme Court guidance.

The General Assembly passed HB26-1322 to preserve the state’s protections while addressing the Court’s First Amendment concerns. Instead of prohibiting counseling in one direction (e.g., efforts to make a young person straight or cisgender), the new law prohibits licensed mental health professionals from imposing any predetermined outcome about sexual orientation or gender identity on a minor — regardless of direction. This reframing targets coercive professional conduct rather than a counselor’s personal view on LGBTQIA+ issues, thereby aligning with the Court’s guidance.  

Colorado also expanded avenues for civil accountability. HB26-1322 extends the statute of limitations for malpractice claims tied specifically to conversion therapy, so survivors can bring claims years — even decades — after the harm. This change reflects the common survivor experiences of delayed recognition that they were the victim of malpractice, and time lapses between said malpractice and the survivor’s reporting. 

The measure also ”creates new legal exposure” for licensed providers and institutions involved in conversion therapy. 

The Big Picture 

Colorado’s response threads a narrow constitutional needle: it keeps protections for minors by regulating coercive professional conduct evenhandedly, rather than policing ideological speech. At the same time, it opens clearer civil pathways for survivors to seek redress. Policymakers cast this as both fidelity to the Supreme Court’s First Amendment boundaries and a continued commitment to evidence-based, ethical mental health care for youth.