Subscribe to the CT4F Newsletter to stay informed!
What the American Psychological Association Told the Supreme Court About Conversion Therapy
The American Psychological Association filed an amicus brief in Chiles v. Salazar in August 2025, arguing conversion efforts are unsupported by evidence and can cause real harm.
In August 2025, the American Psychological Association filed a formal brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Chiles v. Salazar, joined by other major medical and mental health groups, urging the Court to uphold Colorado's ban on licensed conversion counseling for minors. The brief described conversion efforts as "dangerous, unethical, ineffective, and have been repeatedly discredited," building on the APA's own 2009 research review. The Supreme Court did not dispute that evidence. It ruled instead on a narrower legal question, whether Colorado's method of restricting a licensed provider's speech survives the First Amendment, and sent the case back for further review. For Christian parents, the brief matters less as courtroom strategy and more as a public record: the country's leading mental health organization put its full scientific weight, in writing, before the nation's highest court, against this practice.
Quick Takeaways
The American Psychological Association filed an amicus brief in Chiles v. Salazar in August 2025, arguing conversion efforts are unsupported by evidence and can cause real harm.
The brief was filed alongside other major medical organizations, adding a coordinated, cross-specialty voice to the case.
The Supreme Court's March 2026 ruling addressed a First Amendment question about speech regulation. It did not challenge or overturn the APA's scientific findings.
Because the case was sent back for further review, the evidence in the APA's brief remains directly relevant to how Colorado's law fares under the new legal standard.
A brief filed with the Supreme Court is not a talking point. It is a formal, citable record of where the mental health field actually stands.
A Brief Filed With the Highest Court in the Country
An amicus brief, Latin for "friend of the court," lets an outside group without a direct stake in a lawsuit share expertise the justices might not otherwise have. In August 2025, ahead of oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, the American Psychological Association filed exactly this kind of brief, siding with Colorado and its restriction on licensed conversion therapy for minors. Other major medical organizations, including groups representing pediatricians and psychiatrists, filed in coordinated support of the same position.
What the APA Actually Argued
The brief's central claim was blunt: these practices are, in the APA's own words, "dangerous, unethical, ineffective, and have been repeatedly discredited." That language builds directly on the APA's 2009 task force finding that changing who a young person is attracted to is unlikely and unsupported by credible research, a foundation CT4F has covered in depth. What the 2025 brief adds is context specific to this case: a formal argument, filed under the APA's own name, that the scientific basis for restricting this practice is strong enough to justify Colorado's law even under closer legal review.
Why the Court Ruled Without Disputing the Evidence
Here is the part families often misunderstand. The Supreme Court's ruling did not reject the APA's brief or find its science wrong. The justices ruled on a different question entirely: whether Colorado's law, as written, restricted one viewpoint in a way the First Amendment does not allow, regardless of how well-supported that viewpoint's opposite might be. A state can still regulate a practice this discredited. It simply has to write the rule narrowly enough to survive strict scrutiny, the standard now in play. That is exactly why the scientific record the APA built matters going forward, not less.
What This Means for Your Family
None of this asks a Christian parent to set faith aside. It confirms something simpler: the country's leading psychological organization looked at this practice, under oath and under its own name, and told the Supreme Court it does not work and can cause real harm. A provider offering it is not offering something the field disputes quietly. They are offering something their own professional body has formally told the nation's highest court to reject.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an amicus brief? A filing from a group not directly part of a lawsuit, offering the court expertise or evidence relevant to the case. The APA filed one in Chiles v. Salazar supporting Colorado's law.
Did the Supreme Court agree with the APA's brief? The Court did not dispute the APA's evidence. It ruled on a separate legal question about how the law restricted speech, then sent the case back for further review under a tougher standard.
Does the American Psychological Association oppose conversion therapy for children specifically? Yes. Its 2025 brief and its earlier 2009 task force both concluded these practices lack credible evidence and carry documented risk of harm to minors.
Why does this brief still matter if the Court didn't rule on the science? Because the case was sent back for review under strict scrutiny, which requires the state to show a strong justification. The APA's evidence is exactly the kind of record that supports that justification.
What are the risks of conversion therapy the APA pointed to? The brief and the APA's broader research point to anxiety, depression, and damaged trust between a child and their family, with no credible evidence of any offsetting benefit.
Sources and Further Reading
The Brief and the Case
Chiles v. Salazar, et al. -- American Psychological Association -- The APA's own record of its amicus brief filed in this case.
Chiles v. Salazar, et al. (SCOTUS) -- American Psychological Association -- The APA's Supreme Court-stage filing record.
Official opinion in Chiles v. Salazar, No. 24-539 -- Supreme Court of the United States -- The full text of the March 2026 ruling.
Supreme Court ruling on "conversion therapy" puts medical evidence up against free speech -- Science News -- Coverage of the medical organizations' amicus briefs and the scientific arguments they presented.
CT4F Resources for Families
Conversion Therapy Explained -- Conversion Truth for Families -- CT4F's plain-language definition of conversion therapy.
Chiles v. Salazar Ruling Explained -- Conversion Truth for Families -- CT4F's full breakdown of what the ruling changed and left in place.
Mental Health Research on Conversion Therapy -- Conversion Truth for Families -- The broader peer-reviewed research base behind the APA's position.
Does Conversion Therapy Increase Suicide Risk -- Conversion Truth for Families -- What the research shows about the most serious risk named in medical organizations' opposition.
Publicaciones recientes
What the American Psychological Association Told the Supreme Court About Conversion Therapy
The American Psychological Association filed an amicus brief in Chiles v. Salazar in August 2025, arguing conversion efforts are unsupported by evidence and can cause real harm.
In August 2025, the American Psychological Association filed a formal brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Chiles v. Salazar, joined by other major medical and mental health groups, urging the Court to uphold Colorado's ban on licensed conversion counseling for minors. The brief described conversion efforts as "dangerous, unethical, ineffective, and have been repeatedly discredited," building on the APA's own 2009 research review. The Supreme Court did not dispute that evidence. It ruled instead on a narrower legal question, whether Colorado's method of restricting a licensed provider's speech survives the First Amendment, and sent the case back for further review. For Christian parents, the brief matters less as courtroom strategy and more as a public record: the country's leading mental health organization put its full scientific weight, in writing, before the nation's highest court, against this practice.
Quick Takeaways
The American Psychological Association filed an amicus brief in Chiles v. Salazar in August 2025, arguing conversion efforts are unsupported by evidence and can cause real harm.
The brief was filed alongside other major medical organizations, adding a coordinated, cross-specialty voice to the case.
The Supreme Court's March 2026 ruling addressed a First Amendment question about speech regulation. It did not challenge or overturn the APA's scientific findings.
Because the case was sent back for further review, the evidence in the APA's brief remains directly relevant to how Colorado's law fares under the new legal standard.
A brief filed with the Supreme Court is not a talking point. It is a formal, citable record of where the mental health field actually stands.
A Brief Filed With the Highest Court in the Country
An amicus brief, Latin for "friend of the court," lets an outside group without a direct stake in a lawsuit share expertise the justices might not otherwise have. In August 2025, ahead of oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, the American Psychological Association filed exactly this kind of brief, siding with Colorado and its restriction on licensed conversion therapy for minors. Other major medical organizations, including groups representing pediatricians and psychiatrists, filed in coordinated support of the same position.
What the APA Actually Argued
The brief's central claim was blunt: these practices are, in the APA's own words, "dangerous, unethical, ineffective, and have been repeatedly discredited." That language builds directly on the APA's 2009 task force finding that changing who a young person is attracted to is unlikely and unsupported by credible research, a foundation CT4F has covered in depth. What the 2025 brief adds is context specific to this case: a formal argument, filed under the APA's own name, that the scientific basis for restricting this practice is strong enough to justify Colorado's law even under closer legal review.
Why the Court Ruled Without Disputing the Evidence
Here is the part families often misunderstand. The Supreme Court's ruling did not reject the APA's brief or find its science wrong. The justices ruled on a different question entirely: whether Colorado's law, as written, restricted one viewpoint in a way the First Amendment does not allow, regardless of how well-supported that viewpoint's opposite might be. A state can still regulate a practice this discredited. It simply has to write the rule narrowly enough to survive strict scrutiny, the standard now in play. That is exactly why the scientific record the APA built matters going forward, not less.
What This Means for Your Family
None of this asks a Christian parent to set faith aside. It confirms something simpler: the country's leading psychological organization looked at this practice, under oath and under its own name, and told the Supreme Court it does not work and can cause real harm. A provider offering it is not offering something the field disputes quietly. They are offering something their own professional body has formally told the nation's highest court to reject.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an amicus brief? A filing from a group not directly part of a lawsuit, offering the court expertise or evidence relevant to the case. The APA filed one in Chiles v. Salazar supporting Colorado's law.
Did the Supreme Court agree with the APA's brief? The Court did not dispute the APA's evidence. It ruled on a separate legal question about how the law restricted speech, then sent the case back for further review under a tougher standard.
Does the American Psychological Association oppose conversion therapy for children specifically? Yes. Its 2025 brief and its earlier 2009 task force both concluded these practices lack credible evidence and carry documented risk of harm to minors.
Why does this brief still matter if the Court didn't rule on the science? Because the case was sent back for review under strict scrutiny, which requires the state to show a strong justification. The APA's evidence is exactly the kind of record that supports that justification.
What are the risks of conversion therapy the APA pointed to? The brief and the APA's broader research point to anxiety, depression, and damaged trust between a child and their family, with no credible evidence of any offsetting benefit.
Sources and Further Reading
The Brief and the Case
Chiles v. Salazar, et al. -- American Psychological Association -- The APA's own record of its amicus brief filed in this case.
Chiles v. Salazar, et al. (SCOTUS) -- American Psychological Association -- The APA's Supreme Court-stage filing record.
Official opinion in Chiles v. Salazar, No. 24-539 -- Supreme Court of the United States -- The full text of the March 2026 ruling.
Supreme Court ruling on "conversion therapy" puts medical evidence up against free speech -- Science News -- Coverage of the medical organizations' amicus briefs and the scientific arguments they presented.
CT4F Resources for Families
Conversion Therapy Explained -- Conversion Truth for Families -- CT4F's plain-language definition of conversion therapy.
Chiles v. Salazar Ruling Explained -- Conversion Truth for Families -- CT4F's full breakdown of what the ruling changed and left in place.
Mental Health Research on Conversion Therapy -- Conversion Truth for Families -- The broader peer-reviewed research base behind the APA's position.
Does Conversion Therapy Increase Suicide Risk -- Conversion Truth for Families -- What the research shows about the most serious risk named in medical organizations' opposition.
Publicaciones recientes
What the American Psychological Association Told the Supreme Court About Conversion Therapy
The American Psychological Association filed an amicus brief in Chiles v. Salazar in August 2025, arguing conversion efforts are unsupported by evidence and can cause real harm.
In August 2025, the American Psychological Association filed a formal brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Chiles v. Salazar, joined by other major medical and mental health groups, urging the Court to uphold Colorado's ban on licensed conversion counseling for minors. The brief described conversion efforts as "dangerous, unethical, ineffective, and have been repeatedly discredited," building on the APA's own 2009 research review. The Supreme Court did not dispute that evidence. It ruled instead on a narrower legal question, whether Colorado's method of restricting a licensed provider's speech survives the First Amendment, and sent the case back for further review. For Christian parents, the brief matters less as courtroom strategy and more as a public record: the country's leading mental health organization put its full scientific weight, in writing, before the nation's highest court, against this practice.
Quick Takeaways
The American Psychological Association filed an amicus brief in Chiles v. Salazar in August 2025, arguing conversion efforts are unsupported by evidence and can cause real harm.
The brief was filed alongside other major medical organizations, adding a coordinated, cross-specialty voice to the case.
The Supreme Court's March 2026 ruling addressed a First Amendment question about speech regulation. It did not challenge or overturn the APA's scientific findings.
Because the case was sent back for further review, the evidence in the APA's brief remains directly relevant to how Colorado's law fares under the new legal standard.
A brief filed with the Supreme Court is not a talking point. It is a formal, citable record of where the mental health field actually stands.
A Brief Filed With the Highest Court in the Country
An amicus brief, Latin for "friend of the court," lets an outside group without a direct stake in a lawsuit share expertise the justices might not otherwise have. In August 2025, ahead of oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, the American Psychological Association filed exactly this kind of brief, siding with Colorado and its restriction on licensed conversion therapy for minors. Other major medical organizations, including groups representing pediatricians and psychiatrists, filed in coordinated support of the same position.
What the APA Actually Argued
The brief's central claim was blunt: these practices are, in the APA's own words, "dangerous, unethical, ineffective, and have been repeatedly discredited." That language builds directly on the APA's 2009 task force finding that changing who a young person is attracted to is unlikely and unsupported by credible research, a foundation CT4F has covered in depth. What the 2025 brief adds is context specific to this case: a formal argument, filed under the APA's own name, that the scientific basis for restricting this practice is strong enough to justify Colorado's law even under closer legal review.
Why the Court Ruled Without Disputing the Evidence
Here is the part families often misunderstand. The Supreme Court's ruling did not reject the APA's brief or find its science wrong. The justices ruled on a different question entirely: whether Colorado's law, as written, restricted one viewpoint in a way the First Amendment does not allow, regardless of how well-supported that viewpoint's opposite might be. A state can still regulate a practice this discredited. It simply has to write the rule narrowly enough to survive strict scrutiny, the standard now in play. That is exactly why the scientific record the APA built matters going forward, not less.
What This Means for Your Family
None of this asks a Christian parent to set faith aside. It confirms something simpler: the country's leading psychological organization looked at this practice, under oath and under its own name, and told the Supreme Court it does not work and can cause real harm. A provider offering it is not offering something the field disputes quietly. They are offering something their own professional body has formally told the nation's highest court to reject.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an amicus brief? A filing from a group not directly part of a lawsuit, offering the court expertise or evidence relevant to the case. The APA filed one in Chiles v. Salazar supporting Colorado's law.
Did the Supreme Court agree with the APA's brief? The Court did not dispute the APA's evidence. It ruled on a separate legal question about how the law restricted speech, then sent the case back for further review under a tougher standard.
Does the American Psychological Association oppose conversion therapy for children specifically? Yes. Its 2025 brief and its earlier 2009 task force both concluded these practices lack credible evidence and carry documented risk of harm to minors.
Why does this brief still matter if the Court didn't rule on the science? Because the case was sent back for review under strict scrutiny, which requires the state to show a strong justification. The APA's evidence is exactly the kind of record that supports that justification.
What are the risks of conversion therapy the APA pointed to? The brief and the APA's broader research point to anxiety, depression, and damaged trust between a child and their family, with no credible evidence of any offsetting benefit.
Sources and Further Reading
The Brief and the Case
Chiles v. Salazar, et al. -- American Psychological Association -- The APA's own record of its amicus brief filed in this case.
Chiles v. Salazar, et al. (SCOTUS) -- American Psychological Association -- The APA's Supreme Court-stage filing record.
Official opinion in Chiles v. Salazar, No. 24-539 -- Supreme Court of the United States -- The full text of the March 2026 ruling.
Supreme Court ruling on "conversion therapy" puts medical evidence up against free speech -- Science News -- Coverage of the medical organizations' amicus briefs and the scientific arguments they presented.
CT4F Resources for Families
Conversion Therapy Explained -- Conversion Truth for Families -- CT4F's plain-language definition of conversion therapy.
Chiles v. Salazar Ruling Explained -- Conversion Truth for Families -- CT4F's full breakdown of what the ruling changed and left in place.
Mental Health Research on Conversion Therapy -- Conversion Truth for Families -- The broader peer-reviewed research base behind the APA's position.
Does Conversion Therapy Increase Suicide Risk -- Conversion Truth for Families -- What the research shows about the most serious risk named in medical organizations' opposition.