On March 31, the United States Supreme Court voted 8-1 in favor of Kaley Chiles, a Christian mental health counselor, lifting Colorado’s 2019 ban on conversion therapy. 

Chiles challenged the ban on the grounds that it “regulates speech based on viewpoint,” arguing that it was an infringement on her right to freedom of speech. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, agreed, writing that “Colorado’s law … prescribes what views she may and may not express, discriminating on the basis of viewpoint.” 

However, this reasoning overlooks a critical distinction: The only reason why the ban technically regulates Chiles’ expression is that she is a talk therapist who wishes to counsel clients who aim to “reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of harmony with their bodies.”

Chiles’ win, in summary, was spearheaded by technicalities rather than reason, a point others have noted.

Before her ultimate success in the Supreme Court, Chiles had previously been denied in the district court and in the Tenth Circuit, where the judges decided that the law regulates speech only “incidentally” when applied to talk therapy. 

It is worth considering what should take precedence: dedication to the Constitution’s precision or the holistic well-being of 21st-century citizens? If the answer lands on the former, the consequences will be unimaginably devastating. 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the only Supreme Court Justice who dissented, wrote that ”the majority’s holding means, in effect, that just because Chiles is a talk therapist — and not, say, a surgeon — a State can be prevented from incidentally imposing reasonable restrictions on the treatments she provides.” Her outline underlines the absurdity of such a discrepancy; is the mere nature of Chiles’ medical practice enough to overturn a state ban?  

The case makes a mockery of the law. Gorsuch asserted that “The First Amendment is no word game,” referring to the section of the Constitution that declares “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech. However, by clinging to this strict definition, Gorsuch has ironically undermined the meaning and value of free speech, confining it to a rigid man-made, easily exploitable definition rather than an inherent right. 

The broad definitions we treat as the law of the land were never actually intended to last and the Constitution was not meant to be as sacrosanct as it is today. When the U.S. Constitution was written in 1787, Thomas Jefferson intended the document to last for approximately 19 years. 

People living centuries earlier had no way of foreseeing the conditions and needs of a 21st-century society. As such, these absolute definitions, as Gorsuch used, inevitably fall short. Freedom of speech should indisputably be protected; however, we shouldn’t assume it is at risk simply because technicalities make it appear as if it is.

The state of Colorado had originally adopted bill HB19-1129 to mitigate what is described as “a growing mental health crisis” caused by the effects of conversion therapy, ranging from anxiety to increased depression, and more. Indeed, A 2020 peer-reviewed study by The Trevor Project found that LGBTQ youth who underwent conversion therapy were more than twice as likely to attempt suicide compared to those who did not.   

These people aren’t mere statistics; they’re our friends, our family and our loved ones. 

Just last October, as the Supreme Court heard the case, a woman named Linda Robertson stood outside for hours to tell people the story of her son Ryan, according to Psychiatry Online. After Linda and her husband puttRyan in conversion therapy as a minor, he took his own life by overdosing as a 20-year-old — the age I am as I write this article. 

“It was always sold as a way to make a child whole and holy, and yet it did the opposite. It completely broke Ryan’s confidence,” Robertson told MSNBC in October 2025. “When we taught Ryan to hate his sexuality, we were teaching him to hate himself.” 

The results of this new ruling will spread like a disease as it could invalidate laws in some two dozen other states. However, all hope is not lost. 

Post-ruling, the case will return to the lower courts for further review. These courts must emulate the conduct of Jackson, the sole Supreme Court justice who opposed Chiles, stating in clear terms that anyone who practices medicine should abide by the medical standards of the States. 

The rest of us must remember what is at stake. In failing to recognize the harm to the lives of those affected by these recent court rulings, we risk losing something even more crucial than this case: our humanity. 

Dedication: 

To my sister, a transgender woman, and to my best friend, a gay man.