After years of refusing to hear such cases, the Supreme Court has decided to hear Chiles v. Salazar, a case that could overturn the bans on conversion therapy for minors currently in place in 23 states.The Courts hearings and decision will both occur within the coming year, so heres an overview of the case, its background, the anti-LGBTQ+ legal group behind the case, the cases likely outcome, and how LGBTQ+ organizations are reacting. Related Heres what scientific studies on conversion therapy say Scientific studies on conversion therapy show that its harmful and ineffective. All major medical and psychological associations oppose it. What is the Supreme Court conversion therapy case?The case, filed by the anti-LGBTQ+ Christian nationalist legal group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), involves Kaley Chiles a Christian licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, Colorado who says that the states conversion therapy ban prohibits her from advising clients with unwanted same-sex attractions or gender identity confusion who prioritize their faith above their feelings,The Hillreported. Never Miss a Beat Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights. Subscribe to our Newsletter today Chiles challenged the law in 2022 as a violation of her First Amendment right to free speech. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit upheld Colorados ban, saying that it regulated professional conduct rather than speech. The ADF appealed the decision to the nations highest court.The law firm claims that conversion therapy bans allow counselors to steer young people towards gender identities that differ from the sex they were assigned at birth, while punishing counselors for conversations that aim to help [young patients] return to comfort with their sex when they desire that. However, the ADFs claim mischaracterizes the bans. What do conversion therapy bans actually do?In reality, the bans forbid all state-licensed doctors, psychologists, therapists, and social workers from purporting to change a persons sexual orientation or gender identity. Additionally, some states ban the practice of conversion therapy because it violates state medical licensing standards, as the methods are ineffective and harm patients.Indeed, numerous studies show that conversion therapy is an ineffective practice that increases peoples mental distress, internalized queerphobia, and suicidality. Most major American medical and psychological associations disavow conversion therapy as a pseudoscientific form of psychological torture, and note that LGBTQ+ identities are not mental disorders and therefore dont need to be cured. Other states with conversion therapy bans have said that any practitioners who purport to change an individuals LGBTQ+ identity are, in essence, using false advertising to market their services, which violates state regulatory business statutes.The state bans often restrict the use of any state or federal funds to support conversion therapy for minors. Counselors and organizations that violate these bans can face fines, suspension, or revocation of professional licenses, and even imprisonment in some cases.The bans allow counselors to address individuals discomfort with their LGBTQ+ identities, and many counselors will encourage people to safely explore their sexuality or gender to see if certain identities feel right for them or not. Counselors are not required to steer patients into accepting an LGBTQ+ identity.Most states only ban conversion therapy for minors under the age of 18. Currently, Washington, D.C., and Minnesota are the only areas with statutes that also prohibit the practice for adults. Have there been previous Supreme Court conversion therapy cases?Until now, the Court has refused to hear cases challenging state conversion therapy bans.In 2017,the Supreme Court declined to heara challenge to Californias 2012 law banning state-licensed medical professionals from practicing conversion therapy on minors. The ban was challenged on religious freedom grounds by licensed therapist and minister Donald Welch.In December 2023, the Court refused to hear a challenge to a Washington state law banning conversion therapy for minors. The challenge to the law (known as S.B. 5722) was filed by Brian Tingley, a licensed family counselor who practices conversion therapy. He argued that the states ban on licensed therapists performing conversion therapy on minors violates his constitutional rights. He was represented by the anti-LGBTQ+ hate group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).Tingleys case was dismissed by a U.S. district court in Washington in 2021, with Judge Robert Bryan ruling that the state has the authority to regulate medical practice and that the law didnt target Tingley on the basis of his religion, since the law applies to providers of all faiths. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuitupheld the Washington law, and the full appeals court refused to rehear the case.Tingley then asked the Supreme Court to hear his appeal, but six of the justices voted not to hear his case. Three Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented and said that the Court should have heard his appeal. Since the Court did not hear his appeal, the Washington law stayed in place. After Courts refusal, Justice Thomas wrote a blistering dissent.If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein,Thomas wrotein his dissent. Yet, under S.B. 5722 [Washingtons law banning conversion therapy], licensed counselors cannot voice anything other than the state-approved opinion on minors with gender dysphoria without facing punishment.How will the Justices rule in the Supreme Court conversion therapy case?Alliance Defending Freedom (ADL), the anti-LGBTQ+ Christian Nationalist legal group representing plaintiff Kaley Chiles in Chiles v. Salazar, has successfully represented numerous anti-LGBTQ+ cases at SCOTUS, with the courts conservative majority consistently voting in their favor. Because of the Courts 6-3 conservative majority and its habit of favoring Christian religious liberties, its very possible that the court will vote to overturn bans on conversion therapy.ADLs recent religious rights victories at the Court include the following:Mahmoud v. Taylor, a 2025 decision that ruled that schools must allow religious parents to opt their students out of classes containing LGBTQ+ content303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, a 2023 decision that ruled that Colorado cant enforce its anti-discrimination law against a Christian web designer. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a 2022 decision that ruled that theschool district violated a football coachs First Amendment rights by preventing him from praying on the field after games.Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health, a 2022 decision that ruled that pregnant individuals have no constitutional right to receive an abortion. The ruling has endangered the lives of pregnant people seeking reproductive healthcare.Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a 2018 decision that Colorados commission didnt act with the required religious neutrality when evaluating the case of a baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a 2014 decision thatreligious corporations dont have to follow a federal law requiring them to provide contraception coverage to employees.The ADF represented Brian Tingley, the religious counselor who unsuccessfully sued in 2023 to overturn Washington States conversion therapy ban. ADFs case cited a 2018 Supreme Court decision in which the conservative majority ruled that a California law could not require so-called crisis pregnancy centers, which oppose abortion, to inform women about publicly-funded abortion and contraception services. The justices ruled that the California law violated the First Amendments freedom of speech protections.A federal court of appeals in Atlanta relied on that decision to block enforcement of bans on conversion therapy in parts of Florida in 2020. The same reasoning is being used in the Chiles v. Salazar case. What do LGBTQ+ orgs think about the Supreme Court conversion therapy case?In a statement about SCOTUS decision to hear the case, Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said, The Supreme Courts decision to take up this case isnt just about so-called conversion therapy its about whether extremists can use our courts to push their dangerous agenda, in an effort to erase LGBTQ+ people and gut protections that keep our kids safe. Theres no debate: so-called conversion therapy is a dangerous practice, not therapy, and it has no place in our communities. These bans exist to protect LGBTQ+ children from harmperiod.Attacks on LGBTQ+ rights are the entry point to attacks on all of our rights. The same people trying to legalize abuse under the guise of therapy are the ones banning books, ripping away reproductive rights, and undermining our democracy. The Supreme Court must uphold the 10th Circuit decision finding that these laws are constitutional, Robinson added.Casey Pick, director of law and policy for the Trevor Project, noted that lower courts have consistently upheld laws banning conversion therapy for minors. There is no reason the Court should not do the same here and ensure that LGBTQ young people across the country continue to be protected from unprofessional, unscientific, and deeply harmful practices, Pick said.In June, LGBTQ Nation contributor Lauren Everett wrote, Laws banning conversion therapy across the US do not silence religious or personal beliefs; they protect children from debunked and dangerous treatments masquerading as legitimate therapy. Being LGBTQ+ is not a disorder. It is certainly not something that can or should be cured.'Subscribe to theLGBTQ Nation newsletterand be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.