The Supreme Court ruled in Chiles v. Salazar that a Colorado law banning conversion therapy is unconstitutional, striking down the state’s 2019 statute and potentially impacting similar laws across the country. Religious advocates have hailed Tuesday’s decision as a victory for the First Amendment and evangelical Christians, while LGBTQ activists warn it could lead to increased harm for LGBTQ youth.

The conservative majority, joined by two progressive members of the court, sided 8–1 with Kaley Chiles on March 31 in what some critics are calling a landmark ruling for religious zealots, placing the teachings of the Bible above established medical consensus. Chiles, a Christian therapist who practices what she describes as “faith-based talk therapy for children,” challenged Colorado’s House Bill 19-1129, a law prohibiting licensed professionals from engaging minors in efforts to change their sexual orientation or gender identity through conversion therapy. She successfully argued that she and her clients have a constitutional religious right to choose the type of therapy they seek, effectively nullifying the Colorado law banning conversion therapy.

When the court heard oral arguments in October 2025, early questions indicated that the justices were likely to rule against the state in a matter involving LGBTQ rights, making this the fourth major LGBTQ rights case to come from Colorado since 1996.

In 1996, the Supreme Court overruled state initiative Amendment 2 in Romer v. Evans, which tried, but ultimately failed to restrict rules on gay people’s protected status in Colorado. Then in 2018, SCOTUS presided over Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, when a Lakewood baker refused to make a cake for a gay client, which the state argued violated it’s civil rights commission order, but the court sided with the baker, ruling the commission had violated his Christian beliefs. In 2023 the court ruled in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis  that a Denver-based web designer is legally allowed to refuse to make wedding websites for same-sex couples, and successfully arguing she was constitutionally protected under the First Amendment.

Chiles, who practices in Colorado Springs, combines traditional psychological approaches — including cognitive, behavioral, psychodynamic, and humanistic therapies — with Christian beliefs. She argued that the law violated her First Amendment rights by restricting her ability to practice therapy aligned with her religious values, as well as limiting the rights of clients seeking that form of care.

Conversion therapy, widely discredited by major medical and psychological associations, is defined as practices that attempt to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Under Colorado law, providers found in violation could face fines up to $5,000, suspension, or loss of licensure.

Lower courts — including a district court and the 10th Circuit — previously upheld the law, finding it regulated professional conduct rather than speech and therefore required only minimal constitutional scrutiny. However, the Supreme Court, with three Trump-appointed justices, determined that the lower courts failed to apply “sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny,” raising concerns about violations of both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The ruling sends the case back to a lower court for further review.

The decision reflects a broader trend in recent years, with the current court — often referred to as the Roberts Court — more frequently siding with religious liberty claims, particularly those involving Christian plaintiffs.

To better understand the implications of the ruling, the Washington Blade spoke with Colorado-based LGBTQ advocacy organization Rocky Mountain Equality, which has spent decades organizing, educating, and providing services across the state.

Founded in 1994 as Boulder Pride, the organization has since expanded into a statewide force addressing LGBTQ issues, including healthcare, housing, and youth services. Now operating as Rocky Mountain Equality, the group saw a 62 percent increase in 2024 operating revenue, growing to more than $3.765 million while running the Equality Center of the Rocky Mountains in Boulder.

Mardi Moore, the chief executive officer of Rocky Mountain Equality, sat down with the Blade to discuss the ruling and its impact on the broader LGBTQ community, calling it both expected and deeply concerning.

“When the ruling came out today, I think we all knew it wasn’t going to be a winning battle after hearing arguments, but the 8-1 decision made me sad, and honestly, it’s turning into anger,” Moore told the Blade on Tuesday morning. “This is a really sad day — not just for LGBTQ kids, but for all kids in Colorado.”

Moore explained that the law passed with support from Colorado lawmakers and felt like progress toward making the state safer for LGBTQ residents.

While oral arguments were being heard in October, the Blade spoke to a group of conversion therapy survivors who came to the nation’s capital to protest the ban’s removal and support one another. Their stories detailed the emotional and physical toll of conversion therapy.

“We all know the horror stories, and we know conversion therapy is pseudoscience,” she continued. “About a decade ago, Colorado passed a bill — under the leadership of then-Rep. Daniel Ramos — that banned conversion therapy with religious exceptions, which was a huge step forward.”

That step forward now feels like a step back, Moore suggested. While the ruling currently applies to Colorado, she warned it could embolden similar legal challenges nationwide.

“In our initial reading, this ruling only impacts Colorado and isn’t a broader issue for other states. But that doesn’t mean people who oppose LGBTQ rights won’t start fighting state by state,” Moore said. She pointed to the state’s history, including the fight against Amendment 2. “Here in Colorado, we’re used to these battles — we fought Amendment 2, and we’re still fighting now. There are two ballot measures this November: one targeting gender-affirming care for minors, and another banning trans youth from sports at all levels.”

These ballot measures, Moore explained, represent another attempt to restrict trans youth. One would limit gender-affirming surgeries for minors — procedures that research shows are extremely rare — while another would restrict sports participation based on sex assigned at birth.

“These efforts are trying to wipe trans kids off the map. This ruling is sickening — the religious right is still very active, and people who think voting doesn’t matter need to understand that presidents shape Supreme Courts.”

Moore emphasized that while national advocacy is critical, the fight increasingly comes down to local organizing and direct support.

“Here at Rocky Mountain Equality, we advocate for the community, train providers, and support people who have gone through conversion therapy. We have a strong youth program and will continue supporting young people in every way we can.”

“Colorado may seem progressive, but it’s still a purple state,” she added. “Messaging that works in Denver doesn’t always reach families who might send their kids to conversion therapy.”

The timing of the ruling — released on Trans Day of Visibility — also drew criticism.

“Releasing this decision on Trans Day of Visibility feels calculated. It takes a day meant for joy and turns it into another setback,” Moore said.

When asked about next steps, Moore pointed to state-apponited officials who support LGBTQ rights are likely reviewing options.

“I don’t have specifics yet on organized legal responses, but our attorney general, Phil Weiser, argued this case,” she said. “I imagine his office is reviewing every possible option right now.”

Despite the opinion dropping so recently, the emotional toll is already being felt.

“I texted a colleague this morning who went through conversion therapy — it was a sad emoji kind of day,” she said, also referencing a similiar feeling to the one she has now the case of Alana Chen, a University of Colorado Boulder student who died by suicide after experiencing conversion therapy.

“Her story devastated so many, including her mother,” she shared, adding that despite her death “is still advocating for young people” in the battle over conversion therapy — one that feels like it is getting worse with each ruling, with no end in sight.

“I think the real battle started this morning at kitchen tables. There are parents telling their kids, ‘I told you being queer was wrong — the Supreme Court says so,’” Moore said. “Those are the conversations we don’t hear, but they’re happening.”

Rocky Mountain Equality says it will continue focusing on direct support, specifically in rural communities which will face a particularly difficult time as LGBTQ rights become restricted.

“When people reach out to us from rural communities, we help connect them with affirming providers — locally if possible, or in places like Boulder County. We also help with financial support so they can access care. This work is about meeting people where they are,” she explained. “We’re working with organizations across the state, including in more conservative areas like Mesa County. The environments are very different, but we collaborate to share resources and support each other. Leading an organization right now is incredibly tough work.”

The organization is also mobilizing politically ahead of the ballot measures, using the anger from this case as fuel for the long hual to getting LGBTQ rights protected.

“Just last night, we had over 100 people at a kickoff event in Boulder for our campaign to defeat these ballot measures. People signed up to volunteer, donate, and write letters. We’re going to fight to make sure Colorado doesn’t become a ‘hate state’ again,” she said. 

Moore also explained that as Colorado has become a leading destination for affirming healthcare and LGBTQ rights, people from more conservative neighboring states are seeking care there. She added that if the Centennial State can provide access to specialized care that has been politicized elsewhere, it should work to protect those services.

“People are coming to Colorado from surrounding states for gender-affirming care, abortion access, and support. We’re not going to let a small group of hateful voices take that away.”

She called on allies to take action, regardless of how small or meaningless it might seem at first.

“People can help by having conversations in their own communities about the value of every person. They can connect others with resources and support systems,” she said. “And for Colorado specifically, they can donate, share our work, and stand in solidarity.”

Moore drew parallels from past crises the LGBTQ community has had faced, yet many of the LGBTQ people she faught with in the seemingly impossible times of the past are still here and still fighting, emphasizing the community’s resilience..

“I was telling my staff — I’m an old dyke, and I remember the fight during the AIDS crisis. We were trying to make sure people were fed, cared for, and treated, all while our rights were under attack. We lost many lives, but we made it through — and we will again,” she recalled.

“They think if they attack us from every direction, they can erase us, but they’ve only made us stronger. We will continue supporting LGBTQ youth and all children who deserve protection from unregulated, harmful practices like conversion therapy.”

Other LGBTQ advocates also spoke out about the ruling’s impact.

Carl Charles, a member of the Elayne Cassidy Nicholas Memorial Counsel for Trans and Nonbinary Rights at Lambda Legal, issued a statement following the court’s ruling, while touching on and his personal experience with conversion therapy.

“I know firsthand the long-lasting harms of conversion therapy, having been subjected to it when I was 15 years old. This practice did not change my sexual orientation or gender identity. Instead, it destroyed important relationships and created shame and fear that took time and effort to undo. For many survivors, it is a reverberating life-long harm,” he said as he shared his story to the world via a friend-of-the-court brief with the Conversion Therapy Survivor Network, detailing the harms of conversion therapy they experienced.

“I am fortunate to have been able to transcend the trauma of that experience, to celebrate my identity as a transgender man, and to nurture a loving relationship with my husband. But so many young people do not have the familial or community support to withstand the impact of this unethical practice. LGBTQ+ youth do not need to be changed. Rather, like all youth, they need to be supported and celebrated for the unique and important people they are becoming.”

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson issued a statement following announcement of the court’s verdict, condemning the homophobic ruling as thinly veiled intolerance as masquerading a religious right fight. Before the case was heard, the HRC submitted amicus brief detailing how the legislation in question was not religous in nature, but is regulatory speech restriction that helping LGBTQ Americans.

“The court has weaponized free-speech in order to prioritize anti-LGBTQ+ bias over the safety, health and wellbeing of children,” her statement reads. “So-called ‘conversion therapy’ is pseudoscience, not real therapy. It has been condemned by every mainstream medical and mental health association and harms families, traumatizes children, and robs people of their faith communities. It is cruel and should never be offered under the guise of legitimate mental healthcare. To undermine protections that keep kids and families safe from these abusive practices is shocking — and our children deserve better.”

Ghana’s mission to have the United Nations recognize the trafficking of enslaved Africans and racialized chattel enslavement as the gravest crime against humanity is a historic milestone. The resolution adopted on March 25, 2026, with 123 out of about 180 countries in support, marks a major step toward global acknowledgement of the brutality and inhumanity of slavery. A 2022 report by the Equal Justice Initiative, “The Transatlantic Slave Trade,” highlights how during the slave trade, Africans who were enslaved had no rights, freedom, recognition or protection under the law. They had no voice, no bodily autonomy, no respected identity and could be brutally violated with no legal protection. This history represents a grave crime against humanity.

In my opinion, Ghana and the other countries that voted in favor are entirely right to say that such historic events cannot be sanitized or reduced to diplomatic language. Recognition is the first step towards accountability. This matter is important because it is arguably the foundation of the modern-day injustice and inequality people experience, including wealth inequality, racism, sexism, xenophobia, and queerphobia.

The double standard

Yet, despite this important step on the world stage, Ghana’s commitment to human rights appears inconsistent. The same government advocating for justice for enslaved Africans is enacting laws that jeopardies the rights of Africans today. This contradiction between Ghana’s international stance and its domestic policies is at the heart of the discussion.

In February 2026, the Ghanaian parliament formally received the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill. The bill is a grave threat to the rights to nondiscrimination, protection under the law, privacy and freedom of association, assembly, and expression. It expands criminalization of LGBTQ+ people, and anyone associated with them. This Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill calls for a three-year imprisonment for anyone who identifies as LGBTQ+, anyone who has gender affirming treatment, anyone who enters into a same-sex marriage or attends a same-sex wedding and anyone who promotes equal rights for LGBTQ+ people. It turns enforcement into a societal obligation rather than just a state function, encouraging people to report anyone who looks suspicious or different. This further legitimizes the brutal attacks on LGBTQ+ people socially, which leaves the people of Ghana with blood on their hands.  

Ghana’s proposed and reintroduced anti-LGBTQ+ legislation is said to be among the most restrictive in the world and will result in the inhumane treatment of LGBTQ+ people. It not only further criminalizes consensual same-sex relations but also targets civil society organizations that are perceived to be supporting equal rights for LGBTQ+ people. So, if this law passes, it will be illegal to support equal rights and challenge the inhuman treatment of queer Ghanaians and allies. Is this not a double standard? Ghana seeks justice for the ill-treatment of Africans during the transatlantic slave trade but is actively in the process of seeking to harm its own people.

This is not theoretical harm; it is practical harm. According to the Human Rights Watch, LGBTQ+ people in Ghana already face systemic stigma, discrimination, harassment and violence, often enabled by both legal frameworks and social stigma, resulting in a hostile climate.

Ghana falls short of upholding human rights at home

On the global stage, Ghana is arguing that the dehumanization of Africans through slavery was so severe that it constitutes the gravest possible violation of human dignity. This argument rests on a core principle that reducing people to less than fully human is unacceptable under any circumstances.

Back at home, the state is endorsing laws that do exactly that to LGBTQ+ people. Criminalizing identity, suppressing expression, clamping down on civic space, monitoring and surveilling citizens and advocating for social exclusion. These are elements of dehumanization signaling that some are less deserving of protection, dignity, respect, and justice. That is the definition of a double standard.

Supporters of these laws often frame homosexuality as un-African, but this claim does not hold up under scrutiny. In his article, “The ‘Deviant’ African Genders That Colonialism Condemned”, Mohammed Elnaiem emphasizes that historical and anthropological evidence shows that diverse sexualities and gender expressions existed across African societies long before colonial rule. Ironically, many of the laws used to criminalize LGBTQ+ people today trace directly back to the colonial-era. This is even supported by the African Court, which, in December 2020, through its Advisory opinion, made it clear that these colonial-era laws are discriminatory and perpetuated marginalization. The African Court also called on African states to take action in this regard.

It is no secret that anti-rights actors are actively operating in Ghana and supporting leaders to advance their anti-rights agenda. They are increasingly organized, visible, well-funded, and influential in shaping state policy. The upcoming 4th African Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Family and Sovereignty, scheduled to take place in Accra from May 27-30, 2026, is a clear example of this coordination. The conference endorses the so-called African Charter on Family Values, a deeply contested initiative that frames LGBTQ+ people as a threat to children and positions queer identities as foreign ideologies. This platform is being used to legitimize and advance anti-LGBTIQ+ legislation, restrict comprehensive sexuality education and roll back sexual and reproductive health rights. In this context, the treatment of LGBTQ+ people in Ghana cannot be viewed as isolated policy choices, but rather as part of a broader coordinated anti-rights agenda that normalizes and legalizes discrimination. It fuels increasingly inhumane conditions for queer communities and civil society. Ghana is simultaneously rejecting colonial injustice in one breath while enforcing colonial-era morality laws in another.

There is also a legal inconsistency worth noting. Ghana’s own Constitution guarantees the right to life, protection from violence, the right to personal liberty, the right to human dignity, equality and freedom from discrimination and the right to a fair trial. Yet, in practice these rights are not equally applied to LGBTQ+ individuals. Depriving equal rights to LGBTQ+ persons is the same as what the slave owners did to slaves.

You cannot build a credible human rights position on selective application

To be clear, recognizing slavery as a crime against humanity is not diminished by pointing out this contradiction. Both truths can coexist: the UN resolution is a victory and Ghana’s domestic policies remain deeply troubling. In fact, holding both realities together is necessary if the language of human rights is to mean anything at all. Ghana has taken a powerful stand on the global stage. The question now is whether it is willing to apply that same moral clarity at home.

Bradley Fortuin is a consultant at the Southern Africa Litigation Center and a human rights activist.

By PAMELA WOOD, JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV, and MADELEINE O’NEILL | The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against a law banning “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ kids in Colorado, a ruling that also could apply to Maryland’s ban on the discredited practice.

An 8-1 high court majority sided with a Christian counselor who argues the law banning talk therapy violates the First Amendment. The justices agreed that the law raises free speech concerns and sent it back to a lower court to decide whether it meets a legal standard that few laws pass.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court’s majority, said the law “censors speech based on viewpoint.” The First Amendment, he wrote, “stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.”

The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.