�ֲ���ý

June 2026

About the Case

On March 31, in an 8-1 decision in the case of , the U.S. Supreme Court blocked Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy.

Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law bans conversion therapy for minors by licensed mental health professionals. The plaintiff, Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado, claimed the law violated her protected free speech. The court found the law does restrict protected speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and remanded the case to the state’s lower court for strict scrutiny.

Counseling Today discussed the ruling’s ethical considerations and potential impact on the LGBTQ+ community with leading voices from the counseling community.

Ethical Considerations

Lynn Linde, EdD, chief of professional practice at ACA, explains ethical issues related to the case:

What does the �ֲ���ýCode of Ethics say about conversion therapy?

The �ֲ���ýCode of Ethics does not address conversion therapy directly. However, several standards within the code pertain to conversion therapy. Autonomy is one of the foundational principles of the code; counselors respect the client’s right to make their own decisions and control the direction of their life. Further, counselors may not impose their values or beliefs on a client or cause harm to the client. The code also makes it clear that counselors must use evidence-based practices. The evidence clearly demonstrates the harm conversion therapy causes. As such, ACA’s position is that conversion therapy has no safe place in ethical counseling.

If the law allows certain practices, does that make them ethically acceptable?

No. Counselors must always be aware of both the applicable laws and codes of ethics and decide what is in the best interest of their clients in any situation. The fact that something is legal does not necessarily mean it is ethical or that it is what is best for their clients. Counselors must follow the highest standard of care. In other words, just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

How should counselors interpret this ruling alongside their professional codes of ethics?

Most of the focus of the discussion following the Supreme Court’s ruling has centered on their decision overturning Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors. There are other issues as well concerning speech and whether counseling is conduct or speech. All of us will need to continue to watch to see what happens when the 10^th Circuit Court reviews the case again and if other states take any action. In the meantime, counselors need to continue to practice ethically and within the scope of practice of their state’s licensing law.

Do counseling licensing boards have a role to intervene from an ethical perspective?

Licensing boards enforce the regulations for licensure in each state and ensure that counselors are practicing ethically and within the scope of practice of their licensing law. �ֲ���ýdoes not speak for licensing boards but will continue to work with them when ethical issues arise as many boards use the �ֲ���ýCode of Ethics.

Should counselors offer approaches that major professional organizations consider harmful or ineffective?

According to the �ֲ���ýCode of Ethics, counselors must use evidence-based, proven practices. If they use an experimental practice, they must be able to document their decision-making in choosing this technique, which includes evidence of its efficacy and with whom they consulted. Professional associations designate approaches as harmful when the evidence demonstrates the harm caused by that approach. If a counselor chooses to use an approach generally considered harmful, then they would need evidence that in that situation the client was not harmed. Otherwise, their practice would be considered unethical.

How should counselors handle requests from clients for approaches that conflict with ethical guidelines?

Counselors must ensure they are practicing ethically. If a client were to request services or techniques that are unethical, the counselor should discuss with the client their inability to provide such services and options for other approaches that are ethical.

Impact on the LGBTQ+ Community

Thomas “Mitchell” Toomey, PhD, APC, NCC, chair of the public policy committee at the Society for Sexual, Affectional, Intersex, and Gender Expansive identities (SAIGE), an �ֲ���ýdivision, discusses the potential effects on the LGBTQ+ community:

Why has conversion therapy been widely discredited?

Conversion therapy has been discredited because it is not supported by credible scientific evidence, is based on the false idea that LGBTQ+ identities are pathological or need to be changed, and has been linked to serious harm, including psychological distress, depression, anxiety, substance use and suicidality. There is no credible scientific data supporting its effectiveness, and research has shown it to be harmful and damaging. As such, any efforts by counselors to change a client’s sexual orientation or gender identity fall outside the bounds of ethical, evidence-based practice and may constitute malpractice due to the well-documented risk of harm.

What is the view of SAIGE on conversion therapy?

SAIGE’s position is clear: Conversion therapy causes measurable harm, pathologizes LGBTQ+ identities and is inconsistent with evidence-based, affirming counseling. SAIGE has stated that the recent Chiles v. Salazar ruling does not change counselors’ ethical obligations. Constitutional protection of speech does not override an individual counselor’s ethical obligations or licensure board standards.

How might this ruling affect LGBTQ+ minors, especially those whose parents are unsupportive?

This ruling will increase fear that counseling could be used to pressure LGBTQ+ minors toward shame, suppression or identity change rather than support. Youth who depend on parents for access to care may be especially vulnerable if parents seek out providers who frame rejection of LGBTQ+ identity as “treatment.” Adding to this risk, some contemporary forms of conversion therapy are marketed under more neutral or ambiguous terms, such as “gender exploratory therapy,” making them harder to identify. As a result, minors and even well-intentioned, supportive parents may unintentionally engage with harmful practices if they are not equipped with the right questions to evaluate a provider’s approach. Counselors working with minors should be transparent about confidentiality limits, decline parental requests to use counseling to change a child’s identity and consult with colleagues when family pressure for non-affirmation creates significant risk to the minor’s well-being.

What can counselors do to reassure clients that their practice is affirming and evidence-based?

Counselors can be explicit and say, “I do not practice conversion therapy, and I do not view LGBTQ+ identities as problems to be fixed.” They can also make affirming language visible on websites, intake paperwork, consent forms and office materials. They can invite clients to ask questions about the counselor’s approach and clearly distinguish open identity exploration from any attempt to direct a client toward a predetermined sexual orientation or gender identity.