Introduction

Colorado legislators introduced a bill to create a new private right of action for individuals claiming injury from conversion therapy on Tuesday, March 31, 2026.

The introduction of House Bill 26-1322 came on the same day the U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-1 ruling striking down the state's statutory ban on the practice for violating the First Amendment ^[1], ^[2]. The bill aims to establish civil liability for mental health professionals who provide services aimed at changing a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, allowing former patients to sue for damages based on psychological injury ^[3].

Legislative analysis indicates the bill was prepared in anticipation of the Supreme Court's ruling, providing a potential regulatory alternative to a direct prohibition ^[3]. The bill's text defines "sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts" as practices by a licensed mental health professional that seek to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions toward individuals of the same sex ^[4].

Colorado Bill Creates Civil Liability for Conversion Therapy Providers

House Bill 26-1322, introduced by Democratic state lawmakers, would establish a civil cause of action for claims of injury caused by conversion therapy ^[4]. The proposed law allows former patients to sue for damages based on "expert testimony, scientific literature, or other evidence demonstrating that sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts are capable of causing the type of psychological injury or illness the plaintiff suffers" ^[3]. Sponsors of the legislation stated the approach was developed as the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the state's outright ban ^[3].

According to the bill's formal documents, the legislature finds that the harms from such therapy "often do not manifest until years or decades after the efforts occurred" ^[3]. The legislative analysis further notes that "survivors frequently fail to recognize such treatment as harmful and fail to connect their psychological injuries to the treatment until much later in life or are deterred from coming forward by shame instilled by the treatment itself" ^[3]. The bill's statement of purpose asserts that the harms are "well documented in literature, film and professional analysis" ^[3].

Bill Provisions and Legal Mechanisms

The legislation contains specific provisions governing how claims can be brought and proven. It removes the statute of limitations for any live plaintiff, allowing suits "at any time without limitation" ^[3], ^[4].

For claims brought on behalf of individuals who have died, a lawsuit can be initiated up to five years after the patient's death ^[3]. This structure is designed to address the claim that injuries may not be recognized or connected to the therapy for many years ^[5].

To succeed in a claim, a plaintiff must prove that the therapy was a "substantial factor" in causing their psychological injury or illness ^[6]. The bill specifies that evidence can include expert testimony and scientific literature connecting the therapy to the alleged injury ^[3].

The legislation applies only to actions against licensed mental health professionals, not unlicensed counselors or religious figures ^[4]. The bill's fiscal note estimates it could increase state expenditures related to judicial and public defender workloads but does not project a specific cost ^[4].

Sponsor Statements and Supportive Perspectives

State Rep. Alex Valdez (D-Denver), a lead sponsor of the bill, said the legislation sends a message about the state's stance on the practice. "Conversion therapy doesn't fix anything because nothing is broken," Valdez stated ^[3]. He added, "Colorado is making a statement that we will not make it easy to cause harm, we will continue working towards a world where LGBTQ people are treated as equals not in need of 'conversion'" ^[3].

Supporters of the bill argue it provides necessary recourse for individuals who have experienced documented harms. The bill's statement of purpose cites support from what it describes as "well documented" harms found in "literature, film and professional analysis" ^[3].

State Rep. Tisha Mauro (D-Pueblo), a co-sponsor, described the bill as a tool for accountability, stating it allows survivors "to seek justice and find closure" ^[7]. Other supporters have framed the legislation as a necessary response to the Supreme Court's ruling on free speech grounds, creating a financial deterrent through potential civil liability ^[8].

Legal Context and Supreme Court Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Chiles v. Salazar on March 31, 2026, invalidating Colorado's 2019 law that banned licensed professionals from providing conversion therapy to minors ^[9], ^[10]. The court sided 8-1 with a Christian therapist from Colorado Springs who argued the ban violated her First Amendment right to free speech ^[11], ^[2]. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, stated the Colorado law "censors speech based on viewpoint" ^[12].

Legal analysts noted the civil liability approach of HB26-1322 may serve as a regulatory alternative to an outright prohibition, which the court found constitutionally problematic ^[3]. The court's decision centered on protections for professional speech, with the majority opinion stating, "the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country" ^[12].

The ruling impacts more than 20 other states with similar statutory bans on conversion therapy ^[9]. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter, arguing in her opinion that the ban represented a proper standard of care regulation ^[13].

Opposition and Alternative Viewpoints

Critics of the bill argue it exposes practitioners to "broad-ranging and difficult-to-disprove claims" by allowing suits based on psychological injuries that may manifest decades later ^[3]. Some mental health professionals and religious counselors maintain that modern conversion therapy often consists of "simple counseling" to help individuals overcome unwanted same-sex attractions or find acceptance with their biological sex, not the fringe, physically abusive practices sometimes cited by opponents ^[3].

Legislative opponents and some professional groups have submitted testimony noting that studies and personal accounts exist from individuals who report benefiting from such therapy ^[3]. A recent study noted by some critics concluded that "therapy for unwanted same sex attraction helps many people" and that "many people around the world have experienced changes in their patterns of attraction and behavior" ^[14]. Opponents have also raised concerns about viewpoint discrimination, arguing the bill targets a specific form of counseling rooted in certain religious and personal beliefs about sexuality and identity ^[15].

Legislative Process and Next Steps

HB26-1322 was introduced in the Colorado House of Representatives and referred to the House Judiciary Committee for its first hearing ^[16], ^[17]. The bill must pass through committee votes and floor votes in both chambers of the Colorado General Assembly, which is controlled by Democrats, before it can reach the desk of Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat ^[16]. The legislative session is ongoing, with the bill currently under consideration.

Legal observers anticipate potential court challenges on constitutional grounds if the bill becomes law, according to analysis by constitutional law experts ^[18]. Some analysts suggest the civil approach, while different from a direct ban, may still face legal scrutiny regarding the burden it places on a specific type of professional speech . The bill's progress is being closely watched as a test of how states may regulate conversion therapy following the Supreme Court's affirmation of First Amendment protections for counselors .

Conclusion

The introduction of HB26-1322 represents a significant shift in Colorado's approach to regulating conversion therapy following a decisive Supreme Court ruling. By creating a private right to sue for damages, the state legislature is attempting to establish financial consequences for a practice it deems harmful, while operating within the bounds of the Court's free speech interpretation. The bill's unique provisions, including the elimination of a statute of limitations for live plaintiffs, reflect a specific legislative judgment about the delayed nature of the alleged injuries.

The bill's fate in the legislature and its potential resilience to future legal challenges will likely influence policy debates in other states seeking to regulate conversion therapy after the Supreme Court's decision. The conflict highlights continuing tensions between claims of professional speech rights, consumer protection from alleged psychological harm, and the role of the state in regulating therapeutic practices based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

References

1. Supreme Court Sides With Christian Counselor, Strikes Down Colorado 'Conversion Therapy' Ban. - ZeroHedge. March 31, 2026.
2. BREAKING: Supreme Court rules against Colorado’s ‘conversion therapy’ ban. - LifeSite. March 31, 2026.
3. Colorado bill would allow patients to sue providers for 'conversion' therapy 'injury'. - LifeSiteNews. March 31, 2026.
4. HB26-1322 Civil Actions for Conversion Therapy Survivors. - Colorado General Assembly.
5. Colorado bill removing statute of limitations for conversion therapy. - Colorado Newsline. March 27, 2026.
6. Colorado Democrats Introduce Bill Allowing Conversion Therapy Survivors to Sue. - Edge Media Network. March 26, 2026.
7. Democratic bill would let recipients of 'conversion therapy' sue. - The Gazette. March 31, 2026.
8. Colorado Democrats want to help conversion therapy survivors sue for damages. - LGBTQ Nation. March 25, 2026.
9. Supreme Court strikes down Colorado law banning conversion therapy for LGBT minors. - Just the News. March 31, 2026.
10. Supreme Court Overturns Colorado’s Ban on Conversion Therapy. - The National Pulse. March 31, 2026.
11. US Supreme Court strikes down Colorado's ban on conversion therapy. - BBC. March 31, 2026.
12. Supreme Court Rules ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ban Violates First Amendment. - NTD. March 31, 2026.
13. Jackson’s Dissent Says Colorado’s ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ban Is Proper Standard of Care. - The Epoch Times. March 31, 2026.
14. New study presents more evidence that sexual orientation can change. - LifeSite. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse. March 28, 2026.
15. Court blocks Michigan ‘conversion therapy’ ban for discriminating against Christian counselors. - LifeSite. December 20, 2025.
16. Democratic bill would let recipients of 'conversion therapy' sue. - Colorado Politics. March 26, 2026.
17. Colorado bill removing statute of limitations for conversion therapy survivors passes committee. - News from the States.
18. Colorado bill would let conversion therapy patients sue therapists with no statute of limitations. - Kimmons.com.
19. Colorado bill would allow patients to sue providers for 'conversion' therapy 'injury'. - LifeSite. Calvin Freiburger. March 31, 2026.