Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia have enacted conversion therapy bans that restrict licensed mental health professionals from attempting to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Violations are treated as unprofessional conduct and can cost a provider their license. The enforcement picture changed sharply on March 31, 2026, when the Supreme Court held in Chiles v. Salazar that Colorado’s ban, as applied to talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint and must survive strict First Amendment scrutiny. The bans remain on the books, but their reach against providers who do nothing but speak is now in serious doubt.
Where the Bans Exist
California passed the first statewide ban in 2012, prohibiting licensed mental health providers from performing sexual orientation change efforts on anyone under 18. New Jersey followed in 2013. By early 2025, 24 states plus Washington, D.C., had active bans. Most follow California’s template: they apply only to licensed professionals, protect only minors, and classify violations as unprofessional conduct rather than crimes.
Dozens of cities and counties have passed their own ordinances, sometimes in states with no statewide law. These local measures apply only within municipal limits and carry their own penalty structures, which vary.
Who the Laws Apply To
Every state ban targets the same group: professionals whose authority to treat patients comes from a government-issued license. That covers psychiatrists, psychologists, licensed clinical social workers, marriage and family therapists, licensed professional counselors, and school psychologists. California’s statute, for example, defines “mental health provider” to include physicians specializing in psychiatry, psychologists, licensed marriage and family therapists, licensed clinical social workers, licensed professional clinical counselors, credentialed school psychologists, and licensed educational psychologists.1California Legislative Information. Senate Bill 1172
Interns and Trainees
Most bans explicitly extend to people working toward licensure. California’s law covers psychological assistants, interns, and trainees across multiple disciplines.1California Legislative Information. Senate Bill 1172 Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Jersey use similar language to capture anyone performing counseling as part of professional training. If you are completing supervised clinical hours toward a license, you are almost certainly covered.
Religious Counselors
Clergy, religious leaders, and spiritual advisors who provide guidance through a church or faith organization are generally not covered, as long as they do not also hold a state-issued clinical license. This boundary was deliberate. In Oregon, a coalition of faith leaders publicly supported the state’s ban specifically because the statute did not reach religious instruction or pastoral counseling. The exemption disappears, though, if the counselor also holds a clinical license. From that point, the licensed-professional rules apply regardless of the setting.
What Counts as Conversion Therapy
State statutes define conversion therapy as any practice by a licensed provider that attempts to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Colorado’s definition is typical: it covers efforts to change behaviors, gender expressions, or sexual and romantic attractions toward people of the same sex.2Justia Law. Colorado Revised Statutes Title 12 – Section 12-245-202 Virginia’s ban prohibits any licensed professional from engaging in conversion therapy with anyone under 18.3Virginia Code Commission. Virginia Code 54.1-2409.5 – Conversion Therapy Prohibited
Every state ban carves out the same category of permitted care. Therapists can still offer acceptance, support, and help with coping strategies, social support, and exploration of sexual orientation or gender identity, as long as the counseling does not aim to change the outcome. California’s statute draws the line explicitly: therapy that facilitates “identity exploration and development” without seeking to change orientation is not prohibited.1California Legislative Information. Senate Bill 1172 Gender-affirming care and assistance for someone undergoing gender transition also fall outside the prohibition.2Justia Law. Colorado Revised Statutes Title 12 – Section 12-245-202
That distinction is where the legal fight lives. Critics argue the line between “exploring identity” and “attempting to change identity” cannot be drawn cleanly in a live therapy session. Supporters say the line protects clients from interventions clinicians have found harmful while preserving standard care.
Penalties
A licensed provider who performs conversion therapy on a minor in a state with a ban faces disciplinary action from the state licensing board. Under California’s law, any violation is classified as unprofessional conduct and subjects the provider to board discipline.1California Legislative Information. Senate Bill 1172 Colorado’s statute triggers a disciplinary review that can end in a fine, probation, or license revocation.4Supreme Court of the United States. Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. ___ (2026) Possible outcomes include:
- A formal reprimand placed on the provider’s professional record.
- Probation or practice restrictions the provider must follow to keep practicing.
- Suspension of the license, often with conditions for reinstatement.
- Permanent revocation of the license.
- Monetary fines, which Colorado authorizes as part of its disciplinary process.
Conversion therapy has also been challenged through consumer protection law. In Ferguson v. JONAH, a New Jersey jury found that an organization offering conversion therapy had violated the state’s Consumer Fraud Act through deceptive and unconscionable commercial practices. The jury awarded $72,400 in damages, and the court later ordered $3.5 million in attorneys’ fees. A permanent injunction forced the organization to cease operations.5New Jersey Courts. Ferguson v. JONAH The case established that marketing conversion therapy as effective can constitute consumer fraud, opening an enforcement path alongside licensing board discipline.
How Chiles v. Salazar Changed Enforcement
On March 31, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Chiles v. Salazar. The case involved a Colorado counselor who argued that the state’s ban restricted what she could say to clients during talk therapy. The Court agreed, holding that Colorado’s law “regulates speech based on viewpoint” and that lower courts had applied the wrong level of constitutional scrutiny.4Supreme Court of the United States. Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. ___ (2026)
The Court reached three conclusions. The law regulates speech, not conduct, because the counselor’s practice consisted entirely of conversation, and labeling that conversation a “treatment” does not change its character. The law discriminates by viewpoint, because it allows a therapist to express acceptance of a client exploring their identity but forbids speech that attempts to change it. And professional speech is not a lesser category entitled to reduced First Amendment protection.4Supreme Court of the United States. Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. ___ (2026)
The Court reversed the Tenth Circuit and sent the case back for review under strict scrutiny, the highest standard of constitutional review. A law under strict scrutiny must serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to that interest. Few laws survive the test. The ruling did not strike down Colorado’s statute outright, but any ban applied to talk therapy now faces a steep constitutional hurdle.
What Chiles Means for Other States
The decision did not invalidate conversion therapy bans elsewhere, but it created a template for challenging them. The ruling reaches most directly bans applied to talk therapy, where the provider’s entire practice is verbal. States using the same statutory structure as Colorado, which is nearly all of them, are exposed to similar challenges. Earlier, the Ninth Circuit had upheld Washington’s ban in Tingley v. Ferguson, finding that states can regulate the safety of medical treatments delivered through speech.6United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Tingley v. Ferguson Chiles resolved the circuit split in the opposite direction, and that reasoning is no longer viable.
As of mid-2026, no state has repealed its ban in response to Chiles. Providers who use physical interventions such as aversion techniques stand on different legal footing, since the Court’s analysis focused specifically on speech.
Federal Role
The federal government’s position has swung between administrations. In June 2022, President Biden signed Executive Order 14075, which directed the Department of Health and Human Services to establish an initiative to reduce youth exposure to conversion therapy, consider guidance that the practice does not meet criteria for federally funded programs, and raise public awareness of its harms.7Federal Register. Advancing Equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Individuals
In January 2025, President Trump rescinded Executive Order 14075 as part of a broader reversal of LGBTQ-related executive actions.8The White House. Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government No current federal executive directive discourages the practice or restricts it in federally funded programs. The FTC retains authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to investigate unfair and deceptive trade practices, which could in principle reach providers who falsely market conversion therapy as effective, but no public FTC enforcement action targeting conversion therapy has resulted from a 2016 complaint seeking one.
Filing a Complaint or a Civil Claim
If you believe a licensed professional is practicing conversion therapy on a minor in a state with a ban, you can file a complaint with the relevant state licensing board. In Colorado, the process is open to any person; you do not need to be the client or a family member.4Supreme Court of the United States. Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. ___ (2026) The board decides whether to open a disciplinary investigation. There is no general legal duty for licensed professionals to report colleagues who may be violating the ban, though professional ethics codes may create informal expectations.
Survivors can also pursue civil lawsuits. Consumer fraud statutes, as Ferguson v. JONAH showed, offer one route to damages.5New Jersey Courts. Ferguson v. JONAH Malpractice claims against licensed providers are another. Deadlines vary by state, with statutes of limitations typically running two or more years from the date of harm. Some states extend the deadline for claims arising from treatment received as a minor, sometimes allowing the survivor to file well into adulthood. Anyone considering a civil claim should consult an attorney in their state to confirm which deadlines apply.