In the wake of a pivotal U.S. Supreme Court decision that has complicated the ability of states to regulate the widely discredited practice of conversion therapy, Colorado lawmakers are pivoting toward a new strategy rooted in civil liability. Rather than relying solely on direct bans that have recently come under constitutional fire, House Bill 26-1322 seeks to deter the practice by making it a significant financial and legal risk for licensed professionals.
The legislative shift follows the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chiles v. Salazar, which determined that “talk therapy” is protected speech under the First Amendment. While the Court did not dispute the medical consensus that conversion therapy is harmful and ineffective, it established a constitutional boundary that limits the government’s power to regulate the specific words used within a therapeutic setting. This distinction has forced advocates and legislators to rethink their approach to protecting LGBTQ+ youth.
House Bill 26-1322 targets licensed mental health providers, as well as those who supervise or employ them, by classifying conversion therapy as professional misconduct. Crucially, the bill removes the statute of limitations for survivors, allowing them to seek damages in civil court long after the sessions have ended. Lawmakers note that this change is essential because many survivors do not process the trauma or feel safe coming forward until decades later.
State Representative Karen McCormick, a Democrat and a primary sponsor of the bill, described the measure as a “necessary adaptation” to a legal landscape that has left many vulnerable. The urgency of the legislation is underscored by data from The Trevor Project, which found in a 2024 survey that more than one in 10 LGBTQ+ youth in Colorado reported being subjected to or threatened with conversion therapy in the previous year.
“Unfortunately, we very much know that conversion therapy is alive and well,” says Casey Pick, the Trevor Project’s senior director of law and policy.
The human cost of the practice remains at the forefront of the debate. One survivor, now 60 years old, testified before lawmakers about the lifelong psychological burden of the practice, stating they spent years trying to prove they were “worthy.” While the bill does not reach clergy or religious counselors, proponents like Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, believe that shifting the battleground to civil liability is a strategic way to navigate the “complicated” regulatory environment created by the high court’s recent rulings.
