Colorado lawmakers have advanced new legislation, HB26-1322, that permits individuals to file civil lawsuits against licensed mental health professionals over alleged harm stemming from "sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts." The measure has successfully passed both chambers of the Colorado legislature and is now awaiting signature from Governor Jared Polis (D) to become law. This legislative action directly follows a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down Colorado's previous outright ban on such practices.
"Colorado's new 'conversion therapy ban' allows residents to sue mental health providers for “injury,” hoping to get around the Supreme Court’s ruling against their previous outright ban on the practice." — LifeSiteNews, Twitter
The Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling found that Colorado's earlier prohibition improperly restricted expressive conduct in counseling and failed to meet First Amendment standards. Specifically, the Court determined that the state's prior ban treated certain counseling viewpoints differently from others, concluding that such regulation constituted unconstitutional viewpoint-based restrictions on speech within therapeutic settings. This landmark decision prompted lawmakers across states with similar bans to reconsider how their regulations are structured to avoid future constitutional conflicts, according to reports from LifeSiteNews.
Rather than attempting to reinstate a direct prohibition, HB26-1322 pivots enforcement into the civil court system. Under this new framework, individuals can sue licensed mental health providers if they claim psychological harm connected to what state law broadly defines as "sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts." These efforts are characterized in the bill as counseling practices that attempt to guide or influence a person toward or away from a "predetermined" outcome related to sexual orientation or gender identity.
Supporters of the bill, as reported by The Advocate, contend that the carefully crafted language is intended to prevent coercive or directive therapeutic conduct without imposing a direct restriction on speech within counseling sessions. They argue that this approach respects the nuances of professional speech while still offering a mechanism for recourse for individuals who believe they have been harmed. A significant provision of the legislation extends the timeframe for filing claims, allowing lawsuits to be initiated long after the alleged counseling occurred. Proponents of this extended statute of limitations suggest it is based on the understanding that individuals may not immediately associate past therapy experiences with later psychological distress or self-reflection, thus requiring more time to seek justice.
However, legal observers have voiced concerns that the structure of HB26-1322 could substantially increase litigation exposure for mental health professionals. This concern is particularly acute in cases where clinical documentation might be limited, and disputes could heavily rely on recollections of past therapeutic interactions rather than contemporaneous records, potentially leading to challenges in establishing facts years after the fact.
It is important to note that the Supreme Court ruling that necessitated this legislative overhaul focused narrowly on First Amendment limits concerning professional speech. The Court did not evaluate the medical validity or effectiveness of "conversion therapy" itself, leaving that aspect unaddressed at the federal level.
Colorado's new bill is part of a broader policy response emerging in states that previously enacted restrictions on "conversion therapy" for minors. Lawmakers in these jurisdictions are grappling with how to reconcile their regulatory goals—often aimed at protecting vulnerable youth—with established constitutional speech protections. Currently, over 20 states and Washington, D.C., maintain some form of limitation on the practice, though the specific definitions and enforcement mechanisms vary widely from state to state.
If enacted, HB26-1322 would fundamentally alter how Colorado addresses disputes involving counseling practices. It would replace a system of direct regulatory prohibition with a civil liability framework that enables claims to be pursued potentially many years after the therapeutic treatment. Opponents of the bill argue that this civil liability approach could still indirectly influence counseling behavior by creating a significant long-term legal risk for therapists, especially in sensitive cases involving identity-related discussions. They also raise questions about the practical challenges courts would face in evaluating older claims where clinical context and records might be incomplete, contested, or difficult to reconstruct.
As Colorado moves forward with this legislation, it remains a key part of an ongoing national legal debate regarding the extent to which states can regulate mental health care while simultaneously upholding constitutional protections for speech in professional settings.
