Supreme Court Ruling On Conversion Therapy Ban Raises Questions For Maryland

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision is raising new legal questions about the state’s ban on conversion therapy for minors and prompting lawmakers to consider new protections.

In an 8-1 ruling, on March 31, 2026, the court sided with a Colorado therapist who challenged that state’s ban on conversion therapy, finding that the law violates First Amendment free speech protections. The justices ruled that restricting what licensed counselors can say to patients—particularly in talk therapy—amounts to unconstitutional “viewpoint discrimination.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said the Constitution protects even controversial or unpopular speech, while the court’s lone dissenter warned the decision could weaken safeguards against certain medical practices.

The ruling does not immediately strike down similar laws nationwide, but it raises new questions about enforcing them. Some legal analysts say it could affect bans in more than 20 states, including Maryland, where lawmakers approved restrictions on conversion therapy for minors in 2018.

Maryland’s law prohibits licensed mental health professionals from attempting to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity and treats violations as professional misconduct. But the Supreme Court’s decision—focused specifically on talk therapy—could open the door to new legal challenges.

State leaders are already weighing their next steps.

In Annapolis, lawmakers are pushing forward with legislation that would allow people subjected to conversion therapy to sue providers, even as questions remain about how much authority states retain to regulate the practice. Some officials say the court’s ruling may limit oversight of licensed providers while leaving room to target unlicensed practitioners or pursue civil penalties.

At the same time, advocates warn the decision could have consequences for LGBTQ+ youth. Major medical organizations have long opposed conversion therapy, citing evidence that it can cause psychological harm, including depression and anxiety.

Supporters of the ruling, however, frame it as a victory for free speech and religious liberty, arguing that therapists should be able to engage in conversations with clients without government restriction.

The decision sets up a new legal and political battle in Maryland, where leaders must now balance constitutional limits with efforts to protect residents. As lawmakers respond before the end of the legislative session, the future of the state’s conversion therapy ban remains uncertain.

---