U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Conversion Therapy Ban Casts Doubt on Michigan Law

Federal Court Decision Raises Questions for Michigan's LGBTQ+ Protection

WASHINGTON — A landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down Colorado's ban on "conversion therapy" for minors is now casting doubt on Michigan's similar law, which was previously blocked by a federal appeals court but was still in effect.

The 8-1 ruling, issued on Tuesday, sided with a Christian counselor who argued that state laws prohibiting "talk therapy" intended to help minors work through feelings about their sexual orientation violate the First Amendment.

What the Supreme Court Decided

In Chiles v. Salazar, the Supreme Court held that Colorado's ban on conversion therapy "censors speech based on viewpoint" and therefore violates the Constitution's free speech protections. The 8-1 majority opinion, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, rejected the state's argument that its law regulated professional conduct rather than protected speech.

"We may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety. Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same. But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country," Gorsuch wrote.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented alone in a 35-page opinion, arguing that the issue involved regulating medical practice rather than free speech. She wrote that states have traditionally regulated the provision of medical care through licensing schemes and malpractice regimes without constitutional incident.

Michigan's Conversion Therapy Law

Michigan's conversion therapy ban was passed in 2023 under a Democratic majority and took effect in early 2024. The law prohibited licensed mental health professionals from seeking to change a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity.

However, a federal appeals court ruled against the ban in December 2025, blocking it from taking effect after a lawsuit filed by Catholic Charities organizations in Jackson, Lenawee, and Hillsdale Counties. The case, Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee and Hillsdale Counties, et al. v. Whitmer, et al., argued that the state's law limited the talk therapy services offered by Catholic counselors in violation of free speech protections.

"The general counsel for the Diocese of Lansing, which oversees the Catholic Charities group, welcomed the Supreme Court's decision as strengthening the ruling against Michigan's law," according to Bridge Michigan. "Kids struggling with issues of gender dysphoria or same-sex attraction should be able to get effective and compassionate counseling in accord with Catholic teaching," said attorney William Bloomfield in a statement Tuesday.

State Officials React

Governor Gretchen Whitmer called the Supreme Court decision "disappointing" and stated that Michigan would never support practices that harm or shame LGBTQ+ youth.

"As long as I'm governor, every young person deserves the right to grow up safe, supported, and free to be themselves," Whitmer said in a press release.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel also expressed concern, calling the decision harmful.

"Medical experts have long debunked conversion therapy as a destructive, demoralizing and debunked practice which increases depression and the risk of suicide for LGBTQ+ youth," Nessel said in a statement. "Free speech is a sacred right in America, but it should not provide a runway in which medical professionals can actively harm their patients."

Legal Experts Weigh In

Heather Johnson, a professor in Michigan State University's College of Law, noted that while the Supreme Court's opinion sent shockwaves around the country, there are nuanced legal questions about how it applies to Michigan's specific situation.

"I think a lot of the immediate headlines really got it wrong or gave a misinterpretation," Johnson said.

Brendan Beery, a constitutional law professor at Cooley Law School, explained that the Supreme Court's opinion required lower courts to apply "very, very strict scrutiny" to conversion therapy bans. He concluded that Michigan's law "couldn't survive" this level of review.

"The problem is, again, what this Colorado law is facing is kind of beyond strict scrutiny," Beery said. "The eight justices agreed on is that this was the second thing. This was a viewpoint-based restriction which is almost per se invalid."

The Legal Landscape

The Supreme Court's decision doesn't stop states from regulating severe aversion therapy practices, according to Jay Kaplan, staff attorney for the ACLU of Michigan's LGBTQ+ Project. These more severe practices may use electric shock or nausea-inducing drugs.

"Given what the court has done, we still have to continue to educate and to warn people about the harms related to conversion therapy, even if it's just through talk therapy," Kaplan said.

Emme Zanotti, senior director of movement building and political affairs at Equality Michigan, said the organization will continue to educate communities about the dangers of conversion therapy and work to ensure every young person in the state has access to safe, affirming, and supportive communities and health care providers.

Next Steps

The federal appeals court in Michigan's case sent the decision back to a lower court for further review. A US District Court meeting is set to occur in the next two weeks, where the court will need to determine whether Michigan's law meets the rigorous First Amendment standard now required by the Supreme Court.

"The Supreme Court's decision is yet more evidence that religious freedom, free speech, and parental rights are invaluable," wrote Luke Goodrich, attorney for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty who represented plaintiffs in the Michigan case.

Medical Consensus

Major medical organizations have rejected interventions that attempt to change an individual's sexual orientation, behavior, or gender identity. The American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association have both stated there is no evidence to suggest conversion therapy works, and that it may lead to significant psychological distress including depression, anxiety, and an increase in suicidal behavior.

"The court has weaponized free speech in order to prioritize anti-LGBTQ+ bias over the safety, health and wellbeing of children," said Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, which filed a brief in support of the Colorado ban. "So-called 'conversion therapy' is pseudoscience, not real therapy. We remain committed to protecting children against these abusive practices that tear apart families and will continue to work alongside our coalition partners to ensure no kid has to be subjected to guilt, coercion and rejection as they seek help to better understand themselves and grow."

What's Next for Michigan

The outcome of the Michigan case remains uncertain as lower courts work through the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling. The federal appeals court in Michigan's case cited the Colorado case in its December ruling, suggesting that the Supreme Court's decision could directly impact Michigan's law.

However, legal experts caution that the application of strict scrutiny to Michigan's specific circumstances will be crucial. The lower court will need to decide whether Michigan's law constitutes viewpoint discrimination or can survive under this higher standard of scrutiny.

The Supreme Court's opinion left open the possibility that laws could apply to certain forms of "aversive" physical interventions, but not to the counselor's speech at issue in the case. This distinction may prove critical as Michigan's case moves forward through the courts.

With the Supreme Court ruling creating significant uncertainty about Michigan's conversion therapy ban, both LGBTQ+ advocates and religious organizations are now watching closely to see how lower courts will apply the new First Amendment standard to Michigan's specific law.