2026-03-31T18:09:26.931Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：约翰·弗里茨、德文·科尔
发布于 2026年3月31日，美国东部时间下午2:09
安德鲁·卡巴列罗-雷诺兹/法新社/盖蒂图片社/档案照片
美国最高法院周二支持一名宗教咨询师对科罗拉多州禁止“转化治疗”法案的挑战，称该法案可能违反第一修正案，这给 LGBTQ 群体带来又一挫折，该判决将波及美国近一半州。
这项以8比1通过的判决得到了保守派和自由派大法官的多数支持，从技术层面上讲并未推翻该法律，但意味着下级法院将重新审查此案，并适用最严格的司法审查标准。这意味着科罗拉多州的这项法律以及其他类似法案几乎肯定会被下级法院推翻。
相关实时报道
威尔·邓汉姆/路透社 最高法院支持对“转化治疗”禁令的挑战
科罗拉多州于2019年颁布该法律，旨在保护男女同性恋和跨性别青年免受被科学证伪的“转化治疗”之害——这类治疗试图“改变”他们的性取向或性别认同。倡导组织表示，全美约有一半的州已禁止针对未成年人的这类治疗。
以下是最高法院判决的核心要点：
戈萨奇认为咨询师享有强有力的第一修正案保护
此案的核心争议在于，治疗究竟更像是政府可以监管的医疗行为，还是咨询过程中的言论受第一修正案保护。
大法官尼尔·戈萨奇代表8名多数派大法官撰写判决意见，坚定地站在了言论保护一方。
“科罗拉多州或许认为其政策对公共健康与安全至关重要，”戈萨奇写道，“毫无疑问，历史上许多持压制性观点的政府也曾抱有同样想法。”
但这位保守派大法官补充道：“第一修正案是抵御任何试图在我国强制推行思想或言论正统性的盾牌。它体现的信念是，每个美国人都拥有不可剥夺的思想与言论自由权，并且我们相信自由的思想市场是探寻真理的最佳途径。”
相关报道
吉姆·沃森/法新社/盖蒂图片社/档案照片 父母担忧：若特朗普在出生公民权案中胜诉，美国出生的孩子可能沦为“无国籍者” 阅读时长：6分钟
科罗拉多州持证咨询师卡莉·蔡尔斯以第一修正案为由挑战该法律。她表示，仅在客户主动寻求时，她才会提供“基于信仰的咨询”，并且她明确拒绝使用电击疗法或药物诱导恶心等极具争议的治疗手段。蔡尔斯称，她的工作是帮助那些“希望能对自身身体感到自在与安心”的客户。
蔡尔斯和其他从事此类治疗的咨询师曾面临严重处罚，包括每次违规最高5000美元的罚款，最终甚至可能被吊销执业执照。
去年10月此案进行口头辩论时，多数大法官已表达了对该法律的担忧。多位大法官暗示，针对潜在有害治疗的应对措施应是医疗事故诉讼，而非预防性禁令。
联邦地区法院驳回了蔡尔斯暂停执行该法律的请求，位于丹佛的美国第十巡回上诉法院于2024年9月维持了这一判决。蔡尔斯在最高法院的代理律师是“捍卫自由联盟”，这是一个近年来战绩颇丰的宗教法律团体。
卡根与索托马约尔加入保守派阵营
最高法院的判决最终吸引了法院自由派阵营的两名成员——埃琳娜·卡根大法官和索尼娅·索托马约尔大法官加入多数派。
卡根在协同意见中写道，科罗拉多州的法律问题在于其基于特定观点，因为该法律聚焦于跨性别青年议题辩论的一方。因此，另一个州完全可以颁布法律，禁止咨询师为未成年人提供肯定其性取向或性别认同的治疗。
“由于该州压制了辩论的一方，同时偏袒另一方，宪法问题一目了然，”卡根在由索托马约尔联署的简短意见中写道。
相关报道
罗迪卡·科乔卡鲁/500px/盖蒂图片社 移民倡导者呼吁更高层面的力量影响最高法院关于出生公民权的裁决 阅读时长：6分钟
“今天判决的意义与局限，其中一个关键线索来自卡根大法官的简短协同意见，”CNN最高法院分析师、乔治城大学法学院教授史蒂夫·弗拉德克说道。
“正如卡根所解释的，科罗拉多州法律的问题不在于它基于治疗师的言论内容，而在于它并未对治疗师表达的观点保持中立，”弗拉德克补充道，“换句话说，至少部分大法官并不反对州政府监管医疗专业人员的言论；只是监管方式不能偏向某一方观点。”
杰克逊当庭发表异议
大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊在措辞尖锐的异议中表示，她的同僚们错误地为挑战州级转化治疗禁令的个人提供了保护伞。她称，即使该法律偶然加重了医疗服务提供者的言论负担，这类禁令在宪法上也是允许的。
“宪法并未为监管有害医疗治疗设置障碍，哪怕不合标准的护理是通过言论而非手术刀实施的，”由前总统乔·拜登任命的杰克逊在长达35页的异议书中写道。
杰克逊罕见地当庭宣读了部分异议内容——大法官通常仅在他们认为案件至关重要或法院判决严重错误时才会如此。她警告称，该判决“打开了危险的潘多拉魔盒”，削弱了州政府监管医疗服务的权利。
“我们如今正走在一条滑坡路上：最高法院首次解释第一修正案，允许对儿童造成治疗伤害的风险，理由是限制州政府监管通过言论为患者提供治疗的医疗服务提供者的能力，”她写道。
“接下来会发生什么？最坏的情况是，我们的医疗体系将土崩瓦解——各类持证医疗专业人员——谈话治疗师、精神科医生，以及任何声称在为患者提供治疗时使用言论的人——都将开始广泛援引他们新获得的宪法权利，提供不合标准的医疗服务，”杰克逊写道。
相关报道
奇普·萨莫德维拉/盖蒂图片社 最高法院人人都有话要说。为什么关税案判决有160多页 阅读时长：6分钟
但这些论点并未得到其他8名大法官的认同，戈萨奇还专门批评了杰克逊所倡导的“第一修正案禁区”。
“宪法并非保护部分人自由发言的权利；它保护的是所有人的这项权利，”他补充道，“它不仅保障主流观点的表达；更确保，甚至尤其要保障持异见者的发声权利。”
科罗拉多州法律的后续走向
戈萨奇的判决大量使用了科罗拉多州法律可能违反第一修正案的表述，但最高法院的裁决从技术层面并未推翻该法律。
相反，它将案件发回下级法院，而后者几乎肯定会推翻该法律。
争议的核心在于法院在判定法律是否违宪时适用的“审查等级”。在科罗拉多州一案中，下级法院适用了最低级别的审查标准——即“合理基础审查”，并维持了该法律。根据合理基础审查标准，州政府若能证明其法律与政府利益“合理相关”，即可为可能侵犯第一修正案的法律辩护。在大多数情况下，如果法院适用合理基础审查标准，该法律将得以维持。
周二，最高法院表示，下级法院本应适用所谓的“严格审查”标准——这是最高级别的审查标准，也是最难通过的标准。
根据严格审查标准，政府若要制定侵犯第一修正案的法律，必须具备“令人信服的国家利益”，例如未成年患者的安全，并且必须“严格限定”该法律的适用范围，确保其不会超出政府的 intended 适用对象。
极少有法律能通过严格审查。因此，最高法院的裁决最终可能会判处该法律“死刑”，但执行这一判决的将是另一级法院。
LGBTQ群体权利的最新挫折
周二的判决正值“跨性别可视日”，是 LGBTQ 群体权利在最高法院遭遇的又一挫折，而且今年可能还会有更多。
近年来，最高法院6比3的保守派超级多数对第一修正案采取了扩张性解读，而对第十四修正案的解读则更为狭隘，在一系列案件中 repeatedly 站在了该群体的对立面。
去年6月，最高法院维持了田纳西州禁止向跨性别未成年人提供青春期阻滞剂和激素疗法的法律；2023年，最高法院裁定支持一名因宗教反对而拒绝为同性婚礼制作网站的基督教网页设计师。
在去年11月的一项仓促判决中，最高法院允许特朗普政府要求美国护照上的性别标注与旅行者的出生性别一致，三名自由派大法官对此提出反对。
本月早些时候的另一项快速裁决则叫停了加州的一项教育政策——该政策禁止教师告知家长学生的性别认同表达，加州称此举旨在保护跨性别未成年人免受家庭的排斥与虐待。
但或许关于 LGBTQ 群体权利的最重要判决尚未到来。
最高法院预计将于今年晚些时候就两起案件作出裁决，质疑各州是否可以禁止跨性别学生参加与其性别认同相符的运动队。今年早些时候对这些争议进行口头辩论时，多数大法官已暗示准备支持相关禁令。
CNN的蒂尔尼·斯尼德对本文亦有贡献。
Takeaways from the Supreme Court decision on Colorado law banning ‘conversion therapy’ for trans and gay minors
2026-03-31T18:09:26.931Z / CNN
By John Fritze, Devan Cole
PUBLISHED Mar 31, 2026, 2:09 PM ET
Members of the group “Concerned Women for America” pray outside the US Supreme Court as the Court hears oral arguements in Chiles v. Salazar, a landmark case on “conversion therapy,” on October 7, 2025.
Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images/File
The Supreme Court on Tuesday endorsed a religious counselor’s challenge to Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” for gay and transgender minors, saying it likely violates the First Amendment,handing the LGBTQ community another setback in a decision that will reverberate in nearly half the country.
The 8-1 decision, which had conservative and liberal justices in the majority, does not technically strike down the law, but means lower courts will now review it again and apply the highest form of judicial scrutiny. That means Colorado’s law, and others like it, will almost certainly be struck down by lower courts.
Related live story A U.S. flag flutters outside the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., U.S. March 14, 2026. Will Dunham/Reuters Supreme Court backs challenge to ‘conversion therapy’ ban
Colorado enacted its law in 2019 to protect gay and transgender youth subjected to the scientifically discredited practice of attempting to “convert” their sexual orientation or gender identity. Advocacy groups say roughly half of US states have banned the therapy for minors.
Here are takeaways from the Supreme Court’s decision:
Gorsuch sees robust First Amendment protections for counselors
The case largely broke down along a question of whether therapy is more like a medical practice, which the government can and does regulate, or whether what goes on in a session is speech protected by the First Amendment.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for an eight-justice majority, came down hard on the side of speech.
“Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety,” Gorsuch wrote. “Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same.”
But, the conservative justice added, “the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth.”
Related article People hold a banner as they participate in a protest outside the US Supreme Court over President Donald Trump’s move to end birthright citizenship on May 15, 2025. Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images/File Parents fear their children born in the US could become ‘stateless’ if Trump wins birthright case 6 min read
Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor in Colorado, challenged the law on First Amendment grounds. She said she would engage in her “faith-informed counseling” only when clients sought it out. And she disavowed especially controversial practices, such as the use of electric shock therapy or drug-induced nausea. Chiles described her work as helping clients who “have a goal to become comfortable and at peace” with their body.
Chiles and other therapists who engaged in the practice could have faced serious repercussions, including up to $5,000 fines for each violation and ultimately be stripped of their licenses.
When the case was argued in October, a majority of justices signaled they had concerns with the law. Several suggested that the answer for potentially harmful therapy was a malpractice lawsuit, not a preventative law.
A federal district court denied Chiles’ request to temporarily suspend its enforcement, and the Denver-based 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision in September 2024. Chiles was represented at the Supreme Court by Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious law group that has had considerable success in recent years.
Kagan and Sotomayor joined the conservatives
The court’s decision wound up attracting two members of the court’s liberal wing, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
Kagan wrote in her concurring opinion that the problem with Colorado’s law is that it is based on a viewpoint because it is focused on one side of the debate over trans youth. Therefore, another state could enact a law barring counselors from offering therapy that affirms a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
“Because the state has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward,” Kagan wrote in a short opinion joined by Sotomayor.
Related article [image_6] Rodica Cojocaru / 500px/Getty Images Immigration advocates appeal to a higher power to sway the high court on birthright citizenship 6 min read
“One of the real clues to both the significance and limits of today’s ruling comes from Justice Kagan’s short concurring opinion,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
“As Kagan explains, the problem with Colorado’s law isn’t that it is based on the content of therapists’ speech, but that it isn’t neutral as to the viewpoint they’re expressing,” Vladeck added. “In other words, at least some of the justices aren’t averse to states regulating the speech of medical professionals; they just have to do it in a way that doesn’t prefer one viewpoint over another.”
Jackson dissents from the bench
In a stinging dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said her colleagues were flat wrong to give cover to individuals looking to challenge state conversion therapy bans, which she said were constitutionally permissible even if they incidentally burdened the speech of a health care provider.
“The Constitution does not pose a barrier to reasonable regulation of harmful medical treatments just because substandard care comes via speech instead of scalpel,” Jackson, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, wrote in her 35-page dissent.
Jackson took the rare step of reading parts of her dissent from the bench, which justices usually reserve for the cases they believe are most significant or they feel the court most got wrong. She warned that the ruling “opens a dangerous can of worms” by undermining states’ rights to regulate medical care.
“We are on a slippery slope now: For the first time, the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to bless a risk of therapeutic harm to children by limiting the State’s ability to regulate medical providers who treat patients with speech,” she wrote.
“What’s next? In the worst-case scenario, our medical system unravels as various licensed healthcare professionals – talk therapists, psychiatrists, and presumably anyone else who claims to utilize speech when administering treatments to patients – start broadly wielding their newfound constitutional right to provide substandard medical care,” Jackson wrote.
Related article [image_7] Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett attend the State of the Union address at the US Capitol on February 24, 2026. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Everyone has something to say at the Supreme Court. Why the tariffs ruling had more than 160 pages 6 min read
But those arguments found no purchase among the other eight members of the court, and Gorsuch made a point of critiquing a “First Amendment Free Zone” he said Jackson was pushing for.
“The Constitution does not protect the right of some to speak freely; it protects the right of all,” said added. “It safeguards not only popular ideas; it secures, even and especially, the right to voice dissenting views.”
What comes next for Colorado’s law
Gorsuch’s decision leans heavily on language about how Colorado’s law likely runs afoul of the First Amendment, but the court’s ruling technically doesn’t strike down the law.
Instead, it sends the case back to a lower court that will almost certainly do so.
At issue are the “levels of scrutiny” courts apply when determining if a law is unconstitutional. In the Colorado case, a lower court applied the lowest level of scrutiny – known as “rational basis” – and upheld the law. Under rational basis, states can defend a law that potentially infringes on the First Amendment if it can demonstrate that law is “rationally related” to a government interest. In most cases, if courts apply rational basis to review a law, that law will be upheld.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court said the lower court should have applied what’s known as “strict scrutiny,” that is the highest level of scrutiny – and the hardest to satisfy.
Under strict scrutiny, a government must have a “compelling interest” to enact a law infringing on the First Amendment, such as the safety of minor patients, and it must “narrowly tailor” that law to make sure it doesn’t apply to more people than the government intended.
Laws rarely satisfy strict scrutiny. And so the court’s ruling may well be a death sentence for the law in the end, but one that will ultimately be carried about in another court.
Latest defeat for LGBTQ rights
Tuesday’s decision – coming on Transgender Day of Visibility – was the latest defeat for LGBTQ rights at the Supreme Court and may not be the last this year.
As the court’s 6-3 conservative supermajority has taken an expansive view of the First Amendment and a much narrower view of the 14th Amendment in recent years, it’s repeatedly sided against members of the community in a range of cases.
Last June, the court upheld a Tennessee law banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors, and in 2023, it ruled in favor of a Christian web designer who refuses to create websites to celebrate same-sex weddings because of religious objections.
In a short-fuse decision from November, the court allowed the Trump administration to require the sex designation on US passports to align with a traveler’s biological sex over the objection of three liberal justices.
A similar, quick-turn ruling from earlier this month blocked a California education policy that restricts teachers from informing parents about a student’s gender expression, pausing an approach the state says is intended to protect trans minors from rejection and abuse at home.
But perhaps the most significant decision on LGBTQ rights is yet to come.
The court is expected to hand down decisions in a pair of cases later this year questioning whether states may ban transgender students from playing on sports teams that align with their gender identity. During oral arguments in those disputes earlier this year, a majority of the court signaled it was prepared to uphold the bans.
CNN’s Tierney Sneed contributed to this report.
