On October 7, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, a case challenging Colorado’s ban on licensed professionals providing conversion therapy for minors. The case was brought by a licensed counselor who is arguing that enforcement of the law violates her free speech rights.
Conversion therapy is a practice intended to change the sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression of LGBT people.
In August, scholars from the Williams Institute, represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, filed an amicus brief in this case, presenting research showing that conversion therapy is ineffective and can cause serious harm to vulnerable LGBTQ youth. Below is a summary of research from the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law on conversion therapy.
- Approximately 698,000 LGBT adults in the U.S have received conversion therapy at some point in their lives, including about 350,000 who received it as adolescents.
- LGBT people who underwent conversion therapy have a greater risk of suicidality, including nearly double the odds of lifetime suicidal ideation, 75% higher odds of planning a suicide, and 88% increased odds of attempting suicide compared to LGBT people who did not experience conversion therapy.
- Transgender people exposed to conversion therapy were more likely than those who weren’t to have attempted suicide at some point (63% vs. 40%) and to have attempted suicide in the past year (12% vs. 7%).
- Conversion therapy both reflects and propagates anti-LGBT stigma. Minority stress theory shows that LGBT people who face stigma and rejection—from families, communities, and society at large—are likely to experience adverse physical and mental health outcomes, including depression, anxiety, and self-harm. Experiences of conversion therapy can exacerbate these outcomes.
“Conversion therapy is based on the false premise that being LGBTQ is undesirable or unhealthy,” said Ilan Meyer, Distinguished Senior Scholar of Public Policy at the Williams Institute and lead amicus of the amicus brief. “Research shows it is ineffective at changing a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity and is associated with significant harm, which is why major professional organizations have overwhelmingly rejected the practice.”