Courts And Justice

Colorado's conversion-therapy ban survives harm test

The Tenth Circuit said Colorado could rely on medical evidence showing the practice is unsupported and risky for minors. That record helped the state defend the law.

1 min read·305 words·View source
Colorado's conversion-therapy ban survives harm test
1 / 3
Photo by Acton Crawford on Unsplash

A federal appeals court kept Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors in place. It said the state could lean on medical findings, including suicide-risk concerns, to defend the restriction.

  • Colorado's ban survived on the strength of its harm record.
  • The court accepted evidence that conversion therapy for minors lacks credible support.
  • Suicide-risk concerns helped the state defend the restriction.
  • A federal appeals court in the Tenth Circuit said Colorado could lean on harm findings to uphold its ban on conversion therapy for minors in Chiles v
  • The court treated the state's record as showing that conversion therapy is not supported by credible evidence and has been disavowed by behavioral health experts and associations

Minors in Colorado remain covered by the state’s ban on conversion therapy after a federal appeals court said the state could point to medical evidence, including suicide-risk concerns, to defend it.

The opinion also accepted Colorado's view that the legislature had considered medical evidence about conversion therapy and sexual-orientation change efforts, along with their harms, when it passed the law. That gave the state a basis to argue that the restriction protects minors from ineffective and harmful therapeutic modalities.

Why the record mattered

For families and counselors, the practical effect is simple: the law stays backed by a judicial finding that the state can point to documented harm rather than speculation. The court said Colorado could rely on potential injury and suicide-risk evidence in defending the restriction.

That matters because the fight was never just about labels. It was about whether a state could treat a disputed counseling practice as something it has reason to restrict when the scientific record, in the court's telling, points the other way.

Sources

Synthesized from 8 verified citationsSynthesized by AI linked to original documents.

goflashCover everything