THE SUPREME COURT GRANTS FREEDOM TO HARM YOUTH

What the Supreme Court Really Changed — and Why It Matters Beyond the U.S.

Background

The recent U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision to overturn Colorado’s ban on LGBTQ conversion therapy for minors has sparked global reaction, but much of the reaction has missed what the Court actually ruled. The outcome doesn’t endorse conversion therapy, but it significantly changes the legal pathway for regulating them and has implications beyond the United States, including here in Australia. It’s complex.

Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors was passed in 2019. This was a part  of a growing national trend that began in 2012 with California. Colorado had become the 18th U.S. state to introduce protections for minors. Australia began to enact similar legislation, beginning with Queensland in 2020, and the most recent state was South Australia.

How could something so established be overturned, and with such an overwhelming majority (8–1)?

The case, Chiles v. Salazar, was brought by Kaley Chiles, a Christian therapist in Colorado. She claimed the law restricted what she could say to clients, particularly those seeking to live in accordance with Christian beliefs. The issue was framed as a violation of her First Amendment right to free speech.

Many Americans view the United States Constitution with a level of reverence similar to how some believers approach the Bible. Both are considered sacred documents.

As with the Bible, the Constitution has limitations of interpretation, relevance, and context.

The fact that there are over 40,000 Christian denominations shows that there is not one single interpretation of those Bible verses. Though many would tell us it is God’s inspired word, black and white (truth), it is only to their theological interpretation. The Constitution is the same.

That’s why, in 1973, the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade held that a woman’s decision to have an abortion fell within a broader constitutional right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Nearly fifty years later, in a dramatic reversal, the Trump-conservatively loaded Court overturned that precedent, ruling that the Fourteenth Amendment does not confer a constitutional right to abortion. The amendment didn’t change—the interpretation of it did.

Another flaw in treating the Constitution as “sacred” is a question of relevance. The Second Amendment to own and carry guns may have made sense in 1789, but its application today is far less clear. From countries like Australia,  when we see yet another mass school shooting, it’s difficult to comprehend why these tragedies continue because a nation is still anchored to an 18th-century interpretation of gun rights.

What was really behind the SCOTUS challenge?

What’s easy to miss is that the legal argument didn’t emerge in isolation.

The case was backed by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), an ultra-conservative Christian legal advocacy organisation with a long-standing strategy: reshape U.S. law through carefully selected test cases. Over decades, it has advanced arguments centred on religious freedom and free speech, particularly in cases involving LGBTQ rights. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a well-known U.S. civil rights group that tracks extremism, classifies the ADF as an anti-LGBTQ “hate group.”

The ADF strategy aligns with the vision set out in Project 2025—a coordinated effort to reshape government, law, and public policy around a more explicitly Christian-informed framework. While the ADF works through the courts and Project 2025 focuses on political power and policy, they are pulling in the same direction.

This wasn’t simply a therapist defending her practice; it was a calculated legal move. One piece of a much larger strategy to redraw the boundaries between belief, law, and public life. We’ve seen this so blatantly in the Trump administration’s rollback of hard-won LGBTQ rights and the changes in funding and policy.

The ignored evidence

I’ve been in this game a loooong time. In 1972, I was one of the first in the world to go through a Christian-based reorientation program. Several years after coming out, in 2000, I connected with and began working with thousands of survivors of ex-gay/conversion “therapy” programs. I’ve been advocating on their behalf since then and involved in having these practices banned in Australia and New Zealand. So not only have I been in the game for a loooong time, I know my stuff as well.

The evidence that conversion “therapy” style practices do not work, are harmful, and can be life-threatening is overwhelming.

  • Thousands upon thousands of survivor stories are evidence enough.
  • All major mental health professional organisations agree – attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity have NO scientific basis, do not work, and are harmful to the individuals.
  • Leaders and “therapists” who previously believed in the teachings of so-called conversion therapy have denounced it

The reason legislation has been passed in Australia and states in the U.S. has been to protect people, particularly youth, from the harm of well-meaning but misguided religious leaders, belief-based therapists, and religious parents.

The Supreme Court wasn’t lacking evidence. Survivors, parents, medical bodies, lawmakers, and legal scholars all filed formal submissions urging that the ban be upheld. And they weren’t vague about it. The briefs laid out a consistent, evidence-based picture: these practices don’t work, and they do harm, described in the words of people who lived through it and families who watched it unfold. Medical organisations pointed to decades of research rejecting the idea that sexuality can or should be changed. Survivors described the damage done under the guise of care. Legal experts made the distinction clear: regulating what happens in a therapeutic setting is not the same as censoring speech. Strip it back, and the argument was simple. This isn’t about belief – it’s about what happens when belief becomes a practice that harms young people.

So, if all the evidence was there to support the ban and protect youth, why did the Supreme Court overturn the ban?

This Was About Speech, Not Harm

The Court treated talk therapy as speech, not medical conduct, and that distinction changed everything. Because once something is classified as speech, it becomes protected under the First Amendment, even if that speech is harmful or misguided.

This is a significant shift. Until now, what happens in a therapy room has generally been treated as part of professional practice — something governments can regulate. Now, the boundaries are far less clear, raising real questions about what can and can’t be controlled in healthcare.

Predictably, the decision that came down on March 18 to overturn Colorado’s ban on conversion “therapy” brought much jubilation from conservative Christian groups and publications. Win, win, win, was boldly announced and framed as a win for their Anti-LGBTQ agenda.

In Australia, the spin followed immediately

Let’s be clear about what actually happened.

The Court didn’t give conversion therapy a blanket pass. It didn’t suddenly declare these practices safe, effective, or beyond scrutiny.

Final Thought

This ruling doesn’t rewrite reality. LGBTQ conversion practices are still harmful. They’re still rejected by every major medical body. And they still leave a trail of devastation behind them.

What has changed is the legal terrain.

And when the terrain shifts, strategy has to shift with it. Challenges will be coming our way we must prepare for.

Because this was never just about the law. It’s about whether vulnerable people are protected and whether harm can be repackaged, reframed, and defended as a right.

As I mentioned at the end of the recent ABC Compass program, RECLAIMING PRIDE, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance”

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance