Subscribe to the CT4F Newsletter to stay informed!
Your Child Still Has Legal Protection. But It Now Comes From Malpractice Law.
The Supreme Court's Chiles v. Salazar ruling struck down Colorado's blanket ban on licensed talk-based conversion counseling. It did not touch malpractice law or licensing board discipline.
After Chiles v. Salazar, a state can no longer impose a blanket ban on a licensed counselor's talk-based conversion efforts without that ban surviving a tough new legal test. But Justice Gorsuch's opinion explicitly left two tools standing: individual malpractice lawsuits and case-by-case licensing discipline. That distinction matters more than it sounds. A malpractice claim does not need to prove a whole category of speech should be banned. It needs to prove one provider caused one family-specific, documented harm by falling below the standard of care or skipping informed consent. Colorado's legislature has already rebuilt its law around exactly that framework. For a Christian parent, the protection did not disappear. It moved from a rule that stops harm before it happens to a remedy that holds a provider accountable after it does, which is a real difference, but not the difference between protection and none.
Quick Takeaways
The Supreme Court's Chiles v. Salazar ruling struck down Colorado's blanket ban on licensed talk-based conversion counseling. It did not touch malpractice law or licensing board discipline.
Malpractice claims work case by case. A family does not need a state ban. It needs to show a specific provider caused specific, provable harm.
Legal scholars note the ruling protects individualized harm claims precisely because they do not impose a single government viewpoint the way a categorical ban does.
Informed consent law already requires a provider to disclose what a reasonable patient would want to know, including that no major medical association considers conversion therapy effective.
Colorado rewrote its law in May 2026 around this framework rather than abandoning protection, and other states are watching closely.
What Changed, and What Didn't
The Court's March 2026 ruling addressed one question: can a state ban an entire category of licensed speech before any harm occurs. The answer was no, at least not without surviving strict scrutiny, the toughest test in constitutional law. What the ruling did not do is call conversion therapy safe, effective, or beyond legal reach. The opinion states plainly that "a traditional malpractice action" remains untouched, and CT4F's breakdown of the Chiles v. Salazar ruling walks through exactly where that line falls.
How a Malpractice Claim Actually Works
Think of it in two parts. First, a competence-based claim asks whether a provider met the basic skill and knowledge expected of similar professionals. Courts must weigh whether conversion therapy even counts as a legitimate approach worth that protection, given that no credible research supports it. Second, an informed consent claim asks something simpler: did the provider tell a family what a reasonable patient would need to know before agreeing to treatment. Legal analysts writing in the Yale Journal on Regulation explain why this case-by-case approach survives where a blanket ban did not. Free speech law tends to favor liability tied to a specific, provable harm one family experienced over a government rule applied to everyone in advance.
The Informed Consent Problem Conversion Therapy Can't Solve
This is where the legal picture connects to what families already know. A provider cannot honestly satisfy informed consent while skipping the fact that no major medical association endorses this practice and that courts have already found some providers guilty of fraud for similar promises. Leaving that out is not a technicality. It is the exact gap malpractice law exists to close, regardless of which state a family lives in or how conversion therapy laws by state currently read.
What This Means for Your Family
Conversion therapy is a scam dressed up as clinical care, and a legal system built on individualized harm is still built to catch it. Families do not need to wait for their legislature to act. A provider who promised to change your child, took your money, and never disclosed the documented risks of conversion therapy remains exposed to a lawsuit today, in every state, regardless of how the Supreme Court ruled on speech.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is conversion therapy legal now that the Supreme Court has ruled? It depends on the state and the method. The ruling narrowed how states can pre-emptively ban licensed talk therapy. It did not legalize fraud, and malpractice and licensing discipline remain fully available everywhere.
What is a malpractice claim, in plain terms? A lawsuit arguing a licensed provider failed to meet the basic standard of care a similar professional would meet, or failed to disclose information a reasonable patient needed before agreeing to treatment.
Can I still sue a provider who harmed my child through conversion therapy? Yes. Malpractice and informed consent claims do not depend on any state's ban. They depend on proving a specific provider caused specific harm, which remains true after Chiles v. Salazar.
Does any of this apply to pastors or Christian counselors? No. Malpractice law and licensing discipline apply only to state-licensed professionals acting in a clinical capacity. Pastoral counseling and conversations at home were never covered by these rules.
What are the risks of conversion therapy my family should understand? Documented risks include depression, anxiety, and damaged family trust, none of which any credible research ties to a benefit. Those risks are exactly what informed consent law requires a provider to disclose.
Sources and Further Reading
The Legal Framework After Chiles
Chiles v. Salazar: The First Amendment, Medical Malpractice Litigation and Medical Board Disciplinary Proceedings -- Yale Journal on Regulation -- A legal scholar's analysis of why individualized malpractice claims and licensing discipline survive the ruling.
Official opinion in Chiles v. Salazar, No. 24-539 -- Supreme Court of the United States -- The full text of the March 2026 ruling, including its language on malpractice claims.
Supreme Court Rules Colorado Conversion Therapy Ban Likely Violates First Amendment, But Leaves Malpractice and Other Legal Claims Intact -- National Center for Lesbian Rights -- Analysis of which legal protections for families remain in place.
Colorado's Response
Jared Polis Signs Conversion Therapy Malpractice Bill in Colorado -- Metro Weekly -- Colorado's June 2026 law removing the statute of limitations for harmed families.
CT4F Resources for Families
Conversion Therapy Explained -- Conversion Truth for Families -- CT4F's plain-language definition of the practice and the standards a licensed provider is expected to meet.
Conversion Therapy Laws by State -- Conversion Truth for Families -- Where licensed providers face restrictions today, and how that is shifting after Chiles.
Chiles v. Salazar Ruling Explained -- Conversion Truth for Families -- CT4F's full breakdown of what the ruling changed and what it left alone.
Risks and Harms of Conversion Therapy -- Conversion Truth for Families -- The documented harms a provider is legally obligated to disclose before treatment.
Publicaciones recientes
Your Child Still Has Legal Protection. But It Now Comes From Malpractice Law.
The Supreme Court's Chiles v. Salazar ruling struck down Colorado's blanket ban on licensed talk-based conversion counseling. It did not touch malpractice law or licensing board discipline.
After Chiles v. Salazar, a state can no longer impose a blanket ban on a licensed counselor's talk-based conversion efforts without that ban surviving a tough new legal test. But Justice Gorsuch's opinion explicitly left two tools standing: individual malpractice lawsuits and case-by-case licensing discipline. That distinction matters more than it sounds. A malpractice claim does not need to prove a whole category of speech should be banned. It needs to prove one provider caused one family-specific, documented harm by falling below the standard of care or skipping informed consent. Colorado's legislature has already rebuilt its law around exactly that framework. For a Christian parent, the protection did not disappear. It moved from a rule that stops harm before it happens to a remedy that holds a provider accountable after it does, which is a real difference, but not the difference between protection and none.
Quick Takeaways
The Supreme Court's Chiles v. Salazar ruling struck down Colorado's blanket ban on licensed talk-based conversion counseling. It did not touch malpractice law or licensing board discipline.
Malpractice claims work case by case. A family does not need a state ban. It needs to show a specific provider caused specific, provable harm.
Legal scholars note the ruling protects individualized harm claims precisely because they do not impose a single government viewpoint the way a categorical ban does.
Informed consent law already requires a provider to disclose what a reasonable patient would want to know, including that no major medical association considers conversion therapy effective.
Colorado rewrote its law in May 2026 around this framework rather than abandoning protection, and other states are watching closely.
What Changed, and What Didn't
The Court's March 2026 ruling addressed one question: can a state ban an entire category of licensed speech before any harm occurs. The answer was no, at least not without surviving strict scrutiny, the toughest test in constitutional law. What the ruling did not do is call conversion therapy safe, effective, or beyond legal reach. The opinion states plainly that "a traditional malpractice action" remains untouched, and CT4F's breakdown of the Chiles v. Salazar ruling walks through exactly where that line falls.
How a Malpractice Claim Actually Works
Think of it in two parts. First, a competence-based claim asks whether a provider met the basic skill and knowledge expected of similar professionals. Courts must weigh whether conversion therapy even counts as a legitimate approach worth that protection, given that no credible research supports it. Second, an informed consent claim asks something simpler: did the provider tell a family what a reasonable patient would need to know before agreeing to treatment. Legal analysts writing in the Yale Journal on Regulation explain why this case-by-case approach survives where a blanket ban did not. Free speech law tends to favor liability tied to a specific, provable harm one family experienced over a government rule applied to everyone in advance.
The Informed Consent Problem Conversion Therapy Can't Solve
This is where the legal picture connects to what families already know. A provider cannot honestly satisfy informed consent while skipping the fact that no major medical association endorses this practice and that courts have already found some providers guilty of fraud for similar promises. Leaving that out is not a technicality. It is the exact gap malpractice law exists to close, regardless of which state a family lives in or how conversion therapy laws by state currently read.
What This Means for Your Family
Conversion therapy is a scam dressed up as clinical care, and a legal system built on individualized harm is still built to catch it. Families do not need to wait for their legislature to act. A provider who promised to change your child, took your money, and never disclosed the documented risks of conversion therapy remains exposed to a lawsuit today, in every state, regardless of how the Supreme Court ruled on speech.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is conversion therapy legal now that the Supreme Court has ruled? It depends on the state and the method. The ruling narrowed how states can pre-emptively ban licensed talk therapy. It did not legalize fraud, and malpractice and licensing discipline remain fully available everywhere.
What is a malpractice claim, in plain terms? A lawsuit arguing a licensed provider failed to meet the basic standard of care a similar professional would meet, or failed to disclose information a reasonable patient needed before agreeing to treatment.
Can I still sue a provider who harmed my child through conversion therapy? Yes. Malpractice and informed consent claims do not depend on any state's ban. They depend on proving a specific provider caused specific harm, which remains true after Chiles v. Salazar.
Does any of this apply to pastors or Christian counselors? No. Malpractice law and licensing discipline apply only to state-licensed professionals acting in a clinical capacity. Pastoral counseling and conversations at home were never covered by these rules.
What are the risks of conversion therapy my family should understand? Documented risks include depression, anxiety, and damaged family trust, none of which any credible research ties to a benefit. Those risks are exactly what informed consent law requires a provider to disclose.
Sources and Further Reading
The Legal Framework After Chiles
Chiles v. Salazar: The First Amendment, Medical Malpractice Litigation and Medical Board Disciplinary Proceedings -- Yale Journal on Regulation -- A legal scholar's analysis of why individualized malpractice claims and licensing discipline survive the ruling.
Official opinion in Chiles v. Salazar, No. 24-539 -- Supreme Court of the United States -- The full text of the March 2026 ruling, including its language on malpractice claims.
Supreme Court Rules Colorado Conversion Therapy Ban Likely Violates First Amendment, But Leaves Malpractice and Other Legal Claims Intact -- National Center for Lesbian Rights -- Analysis of which legal protections for families remain in place.
Colorado's Response
Jared Polis Signs Conversion Therapy Malpractice Bill in Colorado -- Metro Weekly -- Colorado's June 2026 law removing the statute of limitations for harmed families.
CT4F Resources for Families
Conversion Therapy Explained -- Conversion Truth for Families -- CT4F's plain-language definition of the practice and the standards a licensed provider is expected to meet.
Conversion Therapy Laws by State -- Conversion Truth for Families -- Where licensed providers face restrictions today, and how that is shifting after Chiles.
Chiles v. Salazar Ruling Explained -- Conversion Truth for Families -- CT4F's full breakdown of what the ruling changed and what it left alone.
Risks and Harms of Conversion Therapy -- Conversion Truth for Families -- The documented harms a provider is legally obligated to disclose before treatment.
Publicaciones recientes
Your Child Still Has Legal Protection. But It Now Comes From Malpractice Law.
The Supreme Court's Chiles v. Salazar ruling struck down Colorado's blanket ban on licensed talk-based conversion counseling. It did not touch malpractice law or licensing board discipline.
After Chiles v. Salazar, a state can no longer impose a blanket ban on a licensed counselor's talk-based conversion efforts without that ban surviving a tough new legal test. But Justice Gorsuch's opinion explicitly left two tools standing: individual malpractice lawsuits and case-by-case licensing discipline. That distinction matters more than it sounds. A malpractice claim does not need to prove a whole category of speech should be banned. It needs to prove one provider caused one family-specific, documented harm by falling below the standard of care or skipping informed consent. Colorado's legislature has already rebuilt its law around exactly that framework. For a Christian parent, the protection did not disappear. It moved from a rule that stops harm before it happens to a remedy that holds a provider accountable after it does, which is a real difference, but not the difference between protection and none.
Quick Takeaways
The Supreme Court's Chiles v. Salazar ruling struck down Colorado's blanket ban on licensed talk-based conversion counseling. It did not touch malpractice law or licensing board discipline.
Malpractice claims work case by case. A family does not need a state ban. It needs to show a specific provider caused specific, provable harm.
Legal scholars note the ruling protects individualized harm claims precisely because they do not impose a single government viewpoint the way a categorical ban does.
Informed consent law already requires a provider to disclose what a reasonable patient would want to know, including that no major medical association considers conversion therapy effective.
Colorado rewrote its law in May 2026 around this framework rather than abandoning protection, and other states are watching closely.
What Changed, and What Didn't
The Court's March 2026 ruling addressed one question: can a state ban an entire category of licensed speech before any harm occurs. The answer was no, at least not without surviving strict scrutiny, the toughest test in constitutional law. What the ruling did not do is call conversion therapy safe, effective, or beyond legal reach. The opinion states plainly that "a traditional malpractice action" remains untouched, and CT4F's breakdown of the Chiles v. Salazar ruling walks through exactly where that line falls.
How a Malpractice Claim Actually Works
Think of it in two parts. First, a competence-based claim asks whether a provider met the basic skill and knowledge expected of similar professionals. Courts must weigh whether conversion therapy even counts as a legitimate approach worth that protection, given that no credible research supports it. Second, an informed consent claim asks something simpler: did the provider tell a family what a reasonable patient would need to know before agreeing to treatment. Legal analysts writing in the Yale Journal on Regulation explain why this case-by-case approach survives where a blanket ban did not. Free speech law tends to favor liability tied to a specific, provable harm one family experienced over a government rule applied to everyone in advance.
The Informed Consent Problem Conversion Therapy Can't Solve
This is where the legal picture connects to what families already know. A provider cannot honestly satisfy informed consent while skipping the fact that no major medical association endorses this practice and that courts have already found some providers guilty of fraud for similar promises. Leaving that out is not a technicality. It is the exact gap malpractice law exists to close, regardless of which state a family lives in or how conversion therapy laws by state currently read.
What This Means for Your Family
Conversion therapy is a scam dressed up as clinical care, and a legal system built on individualized harm is still built to catch it. Families do not need to wait for their legislature to act. A provider who promised to change your child, took your money, and never disclosed the documented risks of conversion therapy remains exposed to a lawsuit today, in every state, regardless of how the Supreme Court ruled on speech.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is conversion therapy legal now that the Supreme Court has ruled? It depends on the state and the method. The ruling narrowed how states can pre-emptively ban licensed talk therapy. It did not legalize fraud, and malpractice and licensing discipline remain fully available everywhere.
What is a malpractice claim, in plain terms? A lawsuit arguing a licensed provider failed to meet the basic standard of care a similar professional would meet, or failed to disclose information a reasonable patient needed before agreeing to treatment.
Can I still sue a provider who harmed my child through conversion therapy? Yes. Malpractice and informed consent claims do not depend on any state's ban. They depend on proving a specific provider caused specific harm, which remains true after Chiles v. Salazar.
Does any of this apply to pastors or Christian counselors? No. Malpractice law and licensing discipline apply only to state-licensed professionals acting in a clinical capacity. Pastoral counseling and conversations at home were never covered by these rules.
What are the risks of conversion therapy my family should understand? Documented risks include depression, anxiety, and damaged family trust, none of which any credible research ties to a benefit. Those risks are exactly what informed consent law requires a provider to disclose.
Sources and Further Reading
The Legal Framework After Chiles
Chiles v. Salazar: The First Amendment, Medical Malpractice Litigation and Medical Board Disciplinary Proceedings -- Yale Journal on Regulation -- A legal scholar's analysis of why individualized malpractice claims and licensing discipline survive the ruling.
Official opinion in Chiles v. Salazar, No. 24-539 -- Supreme Court of the United States -- The full text of the March 2026 ruling, including its language on malpractice claims.
Supreme Court Rules Colorado Conversion Therapy Ban Likely Violates First Amendment, But Leaves Malpractice and Other Legal Claims Intact -- National Center for Lesbian Rights -- Analysis of which legal protections for families remain in place.
Colorado's Response
Jared Polis Signs Conversion Therapy Malpractice Bill in Colorado -- Metro Weekly -- Colorado's June 2026 law removing the statute of limitations for harmed families.
CT4F Resources for Families
Conversion Therapy Explained -- Conversion Truth for Families -- CT4F's plain-language definition of the practice and the standards a licensed provider is expected to meet.
Conversion Therapy Laws by State -- Conversion Truth for Families -- Where licensed providers face restrictions today, and how that is shifting after Chiles.
Chiles v. Salazar Ruling Explained -- Conversion Truth for Families -- CT4F's full breakdown of what the ruling changed and what it left alone.
Risks and Harms of Conversion Therapy -- Conversion Truth for Families -- The documented harms a provider is legally obligated to disclose before treatment.