Colorado lawmakers have advanced legislation that would allow individuals to bring civil lawsuits against licensed mental health professionals over alleged harm connected to so-called “conversion therapy,” a move that follows a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down the state’s prior ban on the practice.
The measure, HB26-1322, has passed both chambers of the Colorado legislature and now awaits Gov. Jared Polis’s (D) signature.
The legislation follows an 8–1 Supreme Court decision that invalidated Colorado’s earlier prohibition, with the Court finding the law improperly restricted expressive conduct in counseling and failed to meet First Amendment standards.
In its ruling, the Court held that the state’s prior ban treated certain counseling viewpoints differently from others, concluding that such regulation amounted to unconstitutional viewpoint-based restrictions on speech in therapeutic settings.
That decision has since led lawmakers to reconsider how similar laws are structured to avoid constitutional conflicts, according to LifeSiteNews.
Rather than reinstating a direct prohibition, HB26-1322 shifts enforcement into the civil court system.
It allows individuals to sue licensed mental health providers if they allege psychological harm connected to what state law defines as “sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts.”
Those efforts are broadly defined as counseling practices that attempt to guide or influence a person toward or away from a “predetermined” outcome related to sexual orientation or so-called gender identity.
According to The Advocate, supporters of the bill say the language is intended to prevent coercive or directive therapeutic conduct while avoiding a direct restriction on speech in counseling sessions.
A key provision of the legislation extends the timeframe for filing claims, allowing lawsuits to be brought long after the alleged counseling occurred.
Supporters say the change is based on the belief that individuals may not immediately connect past therapy experiences with later psychological distress or reflection.
Legal observers say the structure of the bill could increase litigation exposure for mental health professionals, particularly in cases where documentation is limited and disputes rely on recollections of past therapeutic interactions rather than contemporaneous records.
The Supreme Court ruling that prompted the legislative overhaul focused narrowly on First Amendment limits in professional speech, rather than evaluating the medical validity or effectiveness of conversion therapy itself.
The legislation is part of a broader policy response emerging in states with existing restrictions on conversion therapy for minors, as lawmakers attempt to reconcile regulatory goals with constitutional speech protections.
Over 20 states and Washington, D.C. currently maintain some form of limitation on the practice, though definitions and enforcement mechanisms vary widely.
If enacted, HB26-1322 would mark a shift in how Colorado handles disputes involving counseling practices, replacing direct regulatory prohibition with a civil liability system that allows claims to be pursued years after treatment.
Opponents argue the approach could still influence counseling behavior by increasing long-term legal exposure for therapists, particularly in sensitive cases involving identity-related discussions.
They also raise concerns about how courts would evaluate older claims where clinical context and records may be incomplete or contested.
As Colorado moves forward, the legislation remains part of an ongoing legal debate over how far states can go in regulating mental health care while respecting constitutional protections for speech in professional settings.
