The U.S. Supreme Court has fundamentally altered the legal landscape of healthcare by ruling that talk therapy constitutes “speech” rather than “medical conduct.” The decision, handed down on March 31, suggests that the words spoken by a licensed therapist during a session may be protected by the First Amendment, potentially shielding practitioners from state laws that regulate the practice of medicine.
In the 8-1 majority opinion for Chiles v. Salazar, the Court determined that regulating a therapist’s speech can run afoul of constitutional protections. While medical care has traditionally been viewed as a set of procedures and conducts subject to state licensing boards, the Court has now carved out a distinction for talk-based interventions. This shift puts the state’s ability to prohibit harmful, non-evidence-based practices—specifically “conversion therapy” for minors—into significant legal jeopardy.
From a clinical perspective, this ruling creates a precarious tension between constitutional liberties and the established standard of care. For decades, the medical community has operated under the premise that a license to practice medicine is a contract with the state to adhere to evidence-based protocols. By recategorizing therapy as speech, the Court has introduced a loophole where the “conduct” of treating a patient may be legally indistinguishable from the “speech” of expressing an opinion.
The Legal Pivot: Conduct vs. Speech
The case originated in Colorado, where a state law prohibits licensed therapists from practicing conversion therapy—a discredited attempt to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Kaley Chiles, a licensed therapist, challenged the ban, arguing that the law restricted her viewpoint and her freedom of expression.
Initially, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the claim, ruling that Colorado was regulating professional conduct that merely “incidentally involves speech.” The appellate court maintained that because counseling is a licensed professional activity, the state has a legitimate interest in regulating how that activity is performed to ensure patient safety.
The Supreme Court, however, disagreed. The majority held that because the law allows gender-affirming care but bans conversion efforts, it discriminates based on the therapist’s viewpoint. The justices concluded that the law does not regulate conduct in a way that only incidentally burdens speech; rather, “all [the therapist] does is speak, and speech is all Colorado seeks to regulate.”
Risks to LGBTQ+ Youth and Medical Consensus
The immediate fallout of the ruling centers on the protection of LGBTQ+ minors. Major medical bodies, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, have long denounced conversion therapy, stating that such practices lack scientific credibility and cause profound harm.
Clinical research indicates that conversion efforts are closely linked to increased rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidality. Specifically, children exposed to gender identity conversion practices face a significantly higher risk of attempting suicide. Conversely, data suggests that state-level bans on these practices are associated with reduced suicide ideation among high school students.
In an amicus brief, the American Psychological Association (APA) emphasized that gender-affirming care is “developmentally appropriate care” designed to support youth understand their gender experience. The APA characterized conversion efforts as “dangerous, unethical, ineffective, and have been repeatedly discredited.”
A ‘Slippery Slope’ for Medical Regulation
Beyond the specific issue of conversion therapy, the Supreme Court ruling on conversion therapy raises a systemic question: what else in medicine is now “just speech”?
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a sharp dissent, warned that the decision turns its back on the tradition of holding licensed professionals to rigorous standards. “Before now, licensed medical professionals had to adhere to standards when treating patients: They could neither do nor say whatever they want,” Jackson wrote. She argued that the ruling could make speech-only therapies “effectively unregulatable.”
Legal and public health experts are now questioning where the line will be drawn. Michael Ulrich, a public health law professor at Boston University, posed a hypothetical that illustrates the danger: if a provider tells a patient to eat steak and claims that cholesterol is fake, is that a medical treatment subject to regulation or “pure speech” protected by the First Amendment?
Jennifer Bard, a health law professor at the University of Cincinnati, noted that this removes the state’s ability to identify and regulate a form of therapy as harmful and ineffective. For patients, this may erode the trust that their providers are following an evidence-based standard of care, potentially rendering the state-issued medical license “meaningless” in the context of talk-based treatment.
Legal Status of Conversion Therapy Bans
| Jurisdiction | Status | Legal Impact of Ruling |
|---|---|---|
| Colorado | Banned | Sent back for “strict scrutiny” review; likely to be overturned. |
| 22 Other States & DC | Banned | Now vulnerable to similar First Amendment challenges. |
| Michigan | Paused | Facing separate legal challenges in District Court. |
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court did not immediately strike down all conversion therapy laws. Instead, it remanded the Colorado case to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals with instructions to apply “strict scrutiny”—the most stringent form of judicial review. To survive this, the state must prove that the ban serves a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of achieving that goal. Given the Court’s current stance on viewpoint discrimination, legal experts believe it will be exceptionally difficult for the law to survive.
While traditional malpractice claims for patients harmed by therapy remain intact, the APA warned that the ruling shifts legal recourse to after the harm has occurred, removing preventive legal protections for vulnerable minors.
This decision follows a broader trend of the Court weighing in on the intersection of politics and healthcare, echoing previous rulings in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and United States v. Skrmetti. The next critical checkpoint will be the 10th Circuit’s reassessment of the Colorado statute, which will likely set the precedent for the other 22 states with similar bans.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or medical advice.
If you or someone you care about may be at risk of suicide, the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline offers free, 24/7 support, information and local resources from trained counselors. Call or text 988 or chat at 988lifeline.org.
We invite readers to share their perspectives on the balance between professional standards and free speech in the comments below.
