Colorado’s Controversial Bill – Therapy Industry Shaken

Colorado Democrats push unlimited lawsuits against therapists after Supreme Court protects free speech, risking government overreach into private counseling.

Story Snapshot

Supreme Court rules 8-1 that Colorado’s 2019 conversion therapy ban for minors violates First Amendment free speech rights, a victory for religious liberty.
HB26-1322 passes House Judiciary Committee 7-2, allowing civil suits with no statute of limitations against providers of talk therapy on sexual orientation or gender identity.
Bill targets licensed professionals, employers, and supervisors, effective July 1, 2026, shifting from bans to financial penalties post-ruling.
Trump administration backed the free speech win, aligning with conservative values against state censorship of therapy.
Conservatives celebrate First Amendment protection but warn of lawsuit abuse eroding parental rights and professional freedom.

Supreme Court Defends Free Speech in Therapy Ruling

On March 31, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Chiles v. Salazar that Colorado’s 2019 ban on conversion therapy for minors violates the First Amendment. Christian therapist Kaley Chiles, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, challenged the law as viewpoint discrimination against her talk therapy for voluntary clients seeking to reduce unwanted attractions or align with their bodies. The Trump administration urged the court to strike the ban, emphasizing free speech protections. Justice Gorsuch wrote that the law regulates speech as speech, not mere conduct. Justice Jackson dissented, reading from the bench to protest risks to youth health.

Democrats Respond with Civil Liability Bill

Hours earlier on March 25, 2026, HB26-1322 sponsored by Reps. Alex Valdez and Karen McCormick passed the House Judiciary Committee 7-2. The bill defines conversion therapy as efforts by licensed mental health professionals to change sexual orientation or gender identity. It permits lawsuits for damages against therapists, employers, supervisors, or non-interveners, removing the two-year statute of limitations. Representatives of deceased victims can sue within five years of death. Effective July 1, 2026, the measure bypasses the struck-down ban by enabling endless civil actions.

Bill Advances Amid National Free Speech Debates

HB26-1322 differs from the 2019 minor-specific ban by applying to all ages and focusing on civil remedies for delayed harm claims. Sponsors cite a 2024 Trevor Project report claiming 14% of Colorado LGBTQ+ youth faced such therapy, linking it to higher suicide risks. Rep. Valdez called it pseudoscience demanding accountability. The bill now awaits full House vote and Senate consideration. Nationally, over 20 state bans face challenges after rulings blocking Michigan’s, gutting Virginia’s, and overturning Kentucky’s.

This development follows failed enforcement of prior bans and precedents like consumer fraud settlements in California. Medical groups like the American Medical Association deem the practice ineffective and harmful, but the Supreme Court prioritized speech rights for licensed providers serving willing clients.

Implications for Therapists and Conservative Values

Licensed therapists face heightened liability, potentially deterring faith-based counseling aligned with clients’ goals. Conservatives view the ruling as a bulwark against government dictating therapy content, preserving individual liberty and religious freedom. The lawsuit mechanism raises concerns of overreach, allowing subjective claims without time limits to bankrupt professionals. LGBTQ+ advocates like NCLR stress alternatives such as malpractice or fraud suits remain viable. Political fallout energizes Democrats but underscores tensions between patient protection and First Amendment safeguards in mental health.

Short-term, facilities risk punitive awards; long-term, it sets precedent for civil enforcement as regulatory bans crumble. Faith groups and survivors filed amicus briefs supporting restrictions, yet the court sided with free expression. Colorado AG defended the ban as conduct regulation, but lost decisively.