Shocking Legal Twist: Colorado’s New Bill Takes Aim

Colorado lawmakers are trying to do an end-run around the Supreme Court by replacing a struck-down speech ban with a sweeping lawsuit machine aimed at therapists, clinics, and employers.

Story Snapshot

Colorado’s HB26-1322 cleared the House Judiciary Committee 7-2, creating a new civil cause of action tied to “conversion therapy” injuries.
The bill would remove the usual two-year deadline to sue and expand who can be targeted, including employers and supervisors who “failed to intervene.”
The Supreme Court’s 8-1 decision in Chiles v. Salazar struck down Colorado’s 2019 ban for minors, calling talk therapy “speech” protected by the First Amendment.
Supporters argue the measure is about accountability and mental-health harm; critics warn it risks chilling constitutionally protected counseling and religious viewpoints.

Colorado’s new strategy after the Supreme Court loss

Colorado House Democrats advanced HB26-1322 on March 25, 2026, after the House Judiciary Committee approved it 7-2. The proposal would let people who say they were subjected to “conversion therapy” sue for damages, aiming not only at the therapist but also at an employer, supervisor, or other party who allegedly enabled the practice. The bill is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2026, if enacted.

Lawmakers moved this bill as the legal ground shifted beneath them. On March 31, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against Colorado’s earlier law that banned licensed providers from performing conversion therapy on minors. In the Court’s framing, the state crossed a First Amendment line by regulating the content of what a counselor says during therapy sessions, a core issue in the case brought by therapist Kaley Chiles.

What HB26-1322 would change in civil liability

HB26-1322 is not written as a licensing rule; it is written as a lawsuit pathway. The bill defines conversion therapy as efforts by licensed mental health professionals to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity and then authorizes civil claims for injuries tied to that conduct. The measure also removes the typical two-year statute of limitations, a major expansion that could invite claims long after records are lost and memories fade.

The bill goes further by allowing “survival actions” tied to deceased alleged victims, giving representatives up to five years after death to sue. That structure broadens financial exposure for providers and institutions, especially those operating under tight malpractice insurance constraints. Even without a direct state ban on the underlying speech, the threat of open-ended liability can deter lawful counseling choices, particularly when the definition of prohibited “efforts” becomes the center of a courtroom battle.

The First Amendment tension: regulation versus retaliation

The Supreme Court decision did not declare conversion therapy medically beneficial; it addressed whether the state can prohibit a form of talk therapy. That distinction matters because Colorado’s new approach tries to keep pressure on the practice through civil damages rather than a direct ban. Supporters argue this is standard accountability—if someone is harmed, they can sue. Opponents argue it functions like punishment for protected viewpoints, effectively chilling speech the Court said is protected.

In the underlying case, Alliance Defending Freedom backed Chiles and argued the prior ban amounted to viewpoint discrimination. Colorado’s attorney general had defended the minor ban as a regulation of professional conduct. With the Court rejecting that framework, HB26-1322 sets up a fresh test: how far a state can go in encouraging private lawsuits without recreating the same constitutional problem through a different mechanism.

Claims of harm, medical consensus, and what courts may scrutinize

Backers of the bill cite a broad medical consensus that conversion therapy is ineffective and can cause psychological harm. Sponsors pointed to mental health risks, and reporting has referenced a Trevor Project survey indicating 14% of Colorado LGBTQ+ youth were threatened with or subjected to conversion therapy. Those numbers will likely play a role in the political debate, but in court the key question may be narrower: what specific conduct is actionable, and what proof is required to tie damages to speech-based therapy.

National Center for Lesbian Rights has argued that even after the Supreme Court ruling, malpractice and fraud theories can still apply in appropriate cases. That points to the real policy fork in the road: traditional tort standards typically require specific misrepresentation or substandard care, while HB26-1322 creates a tailored cause of action built around a contested category of counseling. For conservative readers worried about government overreach, the long-term risk is precedent—using civil liability to pressure disfavored speech when direct bans fail.