2026年3月31日 / 美国东部时间上午11:16 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
作者：梅利莎·奎因
梅利莎·奎因是CBSNews.com的资深记者，负责报道美国政治，重点关注最高法院和联邦法院事务。
阅读完整简历
华盛顿——最高法院周二裁定支持一名挑战科罗拉多州未成年人“转换疗法”禁令的咨询师，裁决称下级法院在审理此案时未能对第一修正案进行“足够严格的审查”。
最高法院以8比1的投票结果裁定，科罗拉多州的法律在适用于咨询师卡利·蔡尔斯提供的谈话疗法时，是基于观点对言论进行管制。大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊是唯一的持不同意见者，她当庭宣读了异议意见。
该裁决推翻了美国第十巡回上诉法院的判决，该上诉法院曾认定该法律并未侵犯蔡尔斯的言论自由权，而是认为该法律管制的是职业行为，仅附带地对言论造成负担。
最高法院的这项裁决范围狭窄，并未直接推翻科罗拉多州的法律，而是要求下级法院在评估该法律的合宪性时适用最严格的审查标准，这为该州设定了很高的举证门槛。
“科罗拉多州针对转换疗法的法律不仅仅禁止身体干预。在这类案件中，它是基于观点审查言论，”大法官尼尔·戈萨奇代表多数方写道，“科罗拉多州可能认为其政策对公共健康和安全至关重要。历史上那些实行审查制度的政府无疑也抱有同样的想法。但第一修正案是一道盾牌，抵御任何在美国强制执行思想或言论正统性的企图。”
戈萨奇写道，科罗拉多州的法律不仅管制蔡尔斯言论的内容，还“更进一步，规定了她可以表达和不得表达的观点”。
在异议意见中，杰克逊写道，若不允许科罗拉多州监管医疗行为，“将会打开危险的潘多拉魔盒”。
1/1 跳过广告 广告结束后继续观看 访问广告商网站[前往页面]
“这将威胁到各州以任何方式监管医疗服务提供的能力。它将宪法以完全非理性的方式延伸到未知领域，最终还可能给美国人的健康和福祉带来严重损害，”她写道。
为蔡尔斯在最高法院辩护的联盟辩护与自由组织首席法律顾问吉姆·坎贝尔对该裁决表示欢迎。
“孩子们值得得到真正的帮助，让他们确信自己的身体并非错误，他们生来就是美好的。美国最高法院今天的裁决是言论自由、常识和那些迫切希望帮助孩子的家庭的重大胜利，”他在一份声明中说道，“各州不能压制那些帮助年轻人适应自身身体的自愿对话。”
蔡尔斯称该裁决是“咨询师的胜利，更重要的是，是各地儿童和家庭的胜利”。
科罗拉多州的转换疗法禁令
科罗拉多州是已颁布转换疗法限制措施的20多个州之一。该州2019年颁布的《未成年人转换疗法法》禁止心理健康专业人员从事任何试图改变个人性取向或性别认同的执业或治疗，包括谈话疗法。违规者将面临最高5000美元的罚款，可能被暂停执业资格或吊销执照。
科罗拉多州的法律生效数年后，提供“信仰导向”咨询服务的持牌咨询师蔡尔斯起诉了州政府官员。她辩称，该禁令基于观点和讨论内容审查她与患者的对话，侵犯了她的言论自由权。
她计划与那些“减少或消除不受欢迎的性吸引、改变性行为或逐渐适应自身身体”的未成年人进行谈话疗法。蔡尔斯辩称，根据科罗拉多州的禁令，那些希望通过将身份与出生时的生理性别保持一致来解决性别焦虑的家庭和青少年，无法与持牌咨询师合作实现这一目标。但蔡尔斯的律师表示，该法律确实允许为正在接受性别过渡治疗的患者提供支持性治疗。
不过，科罗拉多州官员表示，该法律管制的是该州持牌专业人员提供的医疗服务和执业行为，是各州长期以来监管医疗行业、保护患者免受不合格或有害治疗的举措的一部分。主要医学协会已警告称，试图改变患者性取向或性别认同的行为可能对年轻人造成伤害，且没有可靠的科学证据支持这类做法。
下级法院此前维持了科罗拉多州的法律，认定其管制的是心理健康专业人员的职业行为，而非他们的言论。
最高法院的这项裁决加入了一系列涉及宗教团体言论自由权与LGBTQ权利交集的判例。最高法院2015年将同性婚姻合法化，五年后又裁定禁止基于性别的工作场所歧视的联邦民权法适用于同性恋和跨性别者。
但近年来，保守派多数大法院一直支持那些对州和地方措施提出宗教反对意见的原告。在上一任期内，最高法院裁定支持一组马里兰州家长，他们希望让孩子免于学习涉及性别认同和性取向的绘本课程。
在另一起来自科罗拉多州的纠纷中，最高法院2023年裁定，第一修正案禁止该州强迫一名基督教平面设计师表达与其坚定宗教信仰相悖的信息。
Supreme Court rules against Colorado’s conversion therapy ban on First Amendment grounds
March 31, 2026 / 11:16 AM EDT / CBS News
By Melissa Quinn
Melissa Quinn is a senior reporter for CBSNews.com, where she covers U.S. politics, with a focus on the Supreme Court and federal courts.
Read Full Bio
Washington — The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled in favor of a Colorado counselor who challenged a state law that bans “conversion therapy” for minors, ruling that lower courts failed to apply “sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny” in the case.
The high court ruled 8-1 that Colorado’s law, when applied to talk therapy provided by counselor Kaley Chiles, regulates speech based on viewpoint. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter. She read her dissenting opinion from the bench.
The ruling reverses a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit that found the law did not violate Chiles’ free-speech rights. The appeals court instead concluded that it regulates professional conduct and only incidentally burdens speech.
The decision from the high court is a narrow one and does not overturn Colorado’s law outright. It requires the lower courts to apply the most stringent level of scrutiny when evaluating its constitutionality, one that sets a high bar for the state to meet.
“Colorado’s law addressing conversion therapy does not just ban physical interventions. In cases like this, it censors speech based on viewpoint,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority. “Colorado 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 write that Colorado’s law doesn’t just regulate the content of Chiles’ speecy, but “goes a step further, prescribing what views she may and may not express.”
In her dissent, Jackson wrote that to do anything other than allow Colorado’s regulation of medical treatment “opens a dangerous can of worms.”
1/1 Skip Ad Continue watching after the adVisit Advertiser website[GO TO PAGE]
“It threatens to impair States’ ability to regulate the provision of medical care in any respect. It extends the Constitution into uncharted territory in an utterly irrational fashion. And it ultimately risks grave harm to Americans’ health and wellbeing,” she wrote.
Jim Campbell, chief legal counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom who argued on Chiles’ behalf before the Supreme Court, cheered the ruling.
“Kids deserve real help affirming that their bodies are not a mistake and that they are wonderfully made. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today is a significant win for free speech, common sense, and families desperate to help their children,” he said in a statement. “States cannot silence voluntary conversations that help young people seeking to grow comfortable with their bodies.”
Chiles called the ruling a “victory for counselors and, more importantly, kids and families everywhere.”
Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy
Colorado is one of more than 20 states that have enacted restrictions on conversion therapy. Its measure, called the Minor Conversion Therapy Law, was enacted in 2019 and prohibits mental health professionals from engaging in any practice or treatment, including talk therapy, that attempts to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Violators face fines of up to $5,000 and may be suspended from practicing or stripped of their license.
Several years after Colorado’s law went into effect, Chiles, a licensed counselor who performs “faith-informed” counseling when sought, sued state officials. She argued that the ban violates her free-speech rights by censoring her conversations with patients based on viewpoint and the content of those discussions.
She aims to engage in talk therapy with minors who want to “reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors or grow in the experience of harmony with [their] physical bodies.” Chiles argued that under Colorado’s ban, families and teens who want to address gender dysphoria by aligning identity and biological sex at birth cannot work with a licensed counselor to help reach that goal. But the measure does allow treatment that supports patients undergoing gender transition, Chiles’ lawyers said.
Colorado officials, though, said the law regulates medical treatments and practices provided by professionals licensed by the state. They argued it is part of a long history of states regulating the health care profession to protect patients from substandard or harmful treatment. Major medical associations have warned that practices aimed at trying to change a patient’s sexual orientation or gender identity are potentially harmful to young people and not supported by credible scientific evidence.
Lower courts had upheld Colorado’s law, finding that it regulates the professional conduct of mental health professionals, not their speech.
The decision from the Supreme Court joins a line of rulings that stand at the intersection of the free speech rights of religious parties and LGBTQ rights. The high court in 2015 legalized same-sex marriage and, five years later, ruled that a federal civil rights law prohibiting workplace discrimination based on sex extends to gay and transgender people.
But its conservative majority has in recent years also sided with plaintiffs who have raised religious objections to state and local measures. In its last term, the high court ruled in favor of a group of Maryland parents who wanted to opt their children out of instruction featuring storybooks that address gender identity and sexual orientation.
In another dispute from Colorado, the Supreme Court in 2023 found that the First Amendment prohibited the state from forcing a Christian graphic designer to express messages that were contrary to her closely held religious beliefs.