LGBTQ+ Coloradans who feel they were victims of conversion therapy may have a path to restitution just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a state law that banned the controversial practice.

by Longmont Rep. Karen McCormick (D), if passed, would allow Coloradans who were subjected to conversion therapy to pursue civil action against their former practitioners. The bill, Civil Actions for Conversion Therapy Survivors, passed the House of Representatives earlier this month and cleared its first reading in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday. Democrat Katie Wallace, a Boulder County and Weld County Democrat on the committee, supported the bill.

The bill will now go to the Senate floor for second and third readings. If passed there, it will go to Gov. Jared Polis’ desk for his approval. The second reading is scheduled for Thursday.

McCormick said legislators began working on the bill last year, knowing that a decision on Chiles v. Salazar, the case that struck down Colorado’s conversion therapy ban, was looming.

“Knowing that we were working on this before the decision was made, it tells the LGBTQ+ community that, regardless of the Supreme Court case, that survivors deserve access to justice,” McCormick, who is the parent of a transgender non-binary person, told the Daily Camera. “
 This bill stands independently and (gives that community) a fair opportunity to seek justice.”

, a peer-reviewed medical journal, linked conversion therapy practices to increased depression, PTSD and suicidality in those receiving it.

What the bill says

The bill, designated HB26-1322, establishes “a cause of action for claims of injury caused” by conversion therapy, according to its text. It says that someone who was subjected to conversion therapy, or a personal representative, is due “economic, noneconomic, and exemplary damages.”

The bill defines conversion therapy as a practice “by a licensed mental health-care provider that seeks to direct a patient toward a predetermined sexual orientation or gender identity outcome, or eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings” toward a specific gender or sexual orientation.

Causation for that civil pursuit can be established through expert testimony, scientific literature or other evidence that attests to the harm that conversion therapy can have.

In such a case, the defendant is cleared of wrongdoing if they can prove the plaintiff’s psychological injuries “solely” came from other sources, according to the bill.

This allows those who experienced conversion therapy time to process and understand the trauma they may have received as minors and seek restitution, supporters argue.

The bill doesn’t target religious intervention, McCormick said. She and the other sponsors tout the bill language as being “value-neutral,” referring to personal views on LGBTQ+ identity.

Community debate

Monday’s hearing went through hours of testimony, mostly from opponents of the bill.

“Under this definition, even if a client explicitly asks a counselor to help gain comfort with their biological sex, the counselor cannot do so without risking lawsuit,” argued Nathan Fisher, associate director of the Colorado Catholic Conference.

A section of the bill excludes counseling for a patient to explore their gender identity.

Opposition testimony was mostly framed with criticisms of gender identity inclusions in the bill, as well as religious objections, concerns of government overreach and attempts to “chill” free speech.

Supporters of the bill argued it¶¶Òőap vital for people who have been subject to the practice — which the American Psychological Association calls discredited — or their loved ones.

Joyce Calvo was among the speakers in support of the bill. , a Boulder County woman who committed suicide in 2019 after struggling with the impacts of conversion therapy.

“She was told that living a gay lifestyle was a disorder desire that could be healed. This contributed to her feelings of deep sadness, shame and depression,” Calvo told the committee. “Alana was told that being gay and having impure thoughts were mortal sins that could lead to Hell.

“This bill would have given our family a chance at justice. I wish it had been in place when Alana was alive,” Calvo later added.

Li Brookens, a non-binary Bouler resident who said they underwent conversion therapy, urged the committee to support the bill. Brookens said they were diagnosed with gender identity disorder at 8 years old

“My licensed provider practiced conversion therapy with me three times a week for over four years, and (neither) I nor my parents were engaged in this conversation until treatment was ended,” they testified, then holding up a letter they said was a treatment summary from that time. “I discovered when I was 25 that the whole treatment conflates my gender identity with my potential future sexuality. He writes that the treatment resulted in a renegotiation of my role as an early adolescent girl, including appropriate interest in boys.

“And it took me almost 20 years to discover that was not me renegotiating my gender, it was me learning to repress my true self,” they continued.

Monday’s approval came on a 5-2 party-line vote. In favor were Democrats Lindsey Daugherty (Adams County and Jefferson County), Nick Hinrichsen (Pueblo County), Dylan Roberts (10 rural counties), Mike Weissman (Adams County and Arapahoe County) and Wallace. Voting against were republicans John Roberts (Douglas County) and Lynda Zamora Wilson (El Paso County).

The bill is also sponsored by democrats Rep. Alex Valdez (Denver County), Sen. Lisa Cutter (Jefferson County) and Sen. Kyle Mullica (Adams County).

Polis signed into law administratively on Monday, without a signing ceremony. The law, which takes effect July 1, will require courts to keep records of petitions for a legal name change from public view if the petitioner is younger than 18 at the time of filing.

The law is aimed at protecting the privacy of trans youths and their families.

The original version of the bill also would have directed family court judges to consider a parent’s acceptance of a child’s gender identity when determining custody. That provision, however, was stripped out.

A spokesperson for Polis said at the time that the governor was worried that the provision would be inadvertently harmful to the children and families it sought to protect.

In the latest religious rights case for the conservative-majority court, the justices will hear from in Littleton and the Archdiocese of Denver, which are supported by the Republican Trump administration.

The schools argue that Colorado is violating their religious rights by barring them from the taxpayer-funded universal preschool program over their faith-based admission policies. They say the state has allowed other preschools to prioritize children with disabilities or those from low-income families, so admission based on religious beliefs about gender and same-sex marriage should be allowed, too.

The state said that religious schools are welcome to participate but are required to follow nondiscrimination laws. Income and disability decisions are in line with those rules, Colorado said. The program was created by a 2020 ballot measure and provides public funding for preschool at schools selected by parents.

The plaintiffs are represented by the group Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which applauded the high court¶¶Òőap decision to take up the case.

“The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that states cannot exclude families from government benefits because of their faith. We’re confident the Court will say the same thing here and put a stop to Colorado’s no-Catholics-need-apply rules,” said Nicholas Reaves, a senior counsel at Becket.

As part of the case, which will be heard in the fall, the court will consider narrowing a landmark 1990 decision over the spiritual use of peyote, a cactus that contains a hallucinogen called mescaline. That opinion, written by conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalia, found religious practices don’t create exemptions from broadly applicable laws.

The justices declined a push from the schools, along with a Catholic family in Colorado, to overturn the ruling.

The high court recently has backed other claims of religious discrimination while taking a more skeptical view of LGBTQ+ rights.

The justices last month ruled against another law in Colorado that banned “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ+ kids after the measure was challenged by a Christian counselor.

Last year, the justices found that parents who have religious objections can pull their children from Maryland public school lessons that use LGBTQ+ storybooks. In 2022, the court found a high school football coach who knelt and prayed on the field after games was protected by the Constitution.

The court deadlocked, though, over a plan to establish a publicly funded Catholic charter school after Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself.

___

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at .

Manuel went after the dog in their Colorado Springs neighborhood. A stranger ran with him, trying to help, and when they reached the startled animal, the dog bit the stranger.

Law enforcement showed up. Manuel was given a court hearing for the dog bite.

The case was later dismissed. But when Manuel left the courthouse in September, he said two cars followed him. The 23-year-old stopped for gas and was quickly surrounded by federal agents from .

The undocumented immigrant, who had come with his parents from Mexico when he was 3 years old and had never been in trouble with the law before the dog bite, was detained in the state’s only immigration facility in Aurora for the next two months.

“It was not very pleasant,” he said. He spoke on condition that he only be identified by his middle name to speak candidly about his experiences with the federal government. “I’ve never been in trouble before. It really takes a toll on you mentally.”

As federal authorities pursue President Donald Trump’s goal of arresting and deporting millions of immigrants without legal status, they moved last summer to block longtime U.S. residents from requesting bail in immigration cases, and they have kept others, who would have been released under previous administrations, detained indefinitely.

Caught in that cycle, Manuel was only released after his attorneys filed — and a judge granted — a habeas petition in federal court.

Once a technically complicated legal rarity used to challenge improper incarcerations, habeas corpus petitions have become the predominant avenue for immigrants seeking release from detentions that increasingly end only with a deportation order.

With bail sharply curtailed and other avenues of release all but closed off, Colorado has seen an explosion of habeas cases: In the first 100 days of 2026, more than 370 detained immigrants have asked federal judges to either grant them bail hearings denied by ICE, or to release them altogether. The surge is an unprecedented increase from 2025’s total of 104 and 2024’s total of a bare dozen.

In his first 19 years as a lawyer, Denver immigration attorney Hans Meyer said he’d filed six habeas cases. In the past six months, his firm filed 60. When ICE first moved to withhold bail from a broad swath of detainees last summer, few people in detention were aware that filing habeas petitions was an option.

“The first three months, very few people understood the issue,” Meyer said. “For the next three months, people might know it was an option, but didn’t know much more. But now people in detention always go to habeas first.”

So significant is the crush that attorneys from the , which oversees ICE, have stepped in to help federal prosecutors deal with the cases. The highest-ranking federal prosecutor in the state, U.S. Attorney Peter McNeilly, has also personally handled some of the petitions. It’s the only time this century that a U.S. attorney has made personal appearances on such cases, The Denver Post found.

The declined to comment for this story. Jeffrey Colwell, the clerk for the , confirmed The Post’s case data.

“It does put a significant burden on our judges and chambers,” he said. “It’s 300-plus cases that we haven’t historically seen.”

In an unsigned statement, the Department of Homeland Security said it abides by court orders and was unsurprised by the habeas surge, claiming “no lawbreakers in the history of human civilization have been treated better than illegal aliens in the United States.”

Peering inside the ‘deportation machine’

Habeas petitions have been a part of American law since the nation’s founding, and they’ve been used in immigration proceedings in past years, too.

They’re used generally to challenge someone’s detention or incarceration, though not necessarily the underlying case that led to that confinement. Immigrants who are released or given bail hearings through habeas cases are still subject to deportation proceedings — like Manuel, whose immigration case remains underway.

But these petitions offer an avenue out of detention, and their prominence is surging, particularly as — which fall under the authority of the federal government — bend to the Trump administration’s goals.

The assumption that immigration courts can resolve detention questions “no longer holds,” the . Instead, immigration lawyers are taking their arguments out of immigration hearings and into federal court, where appointed judges can’t be removed on a whim. Indeed, they’ve shown a “striking willingness to intervene” in detention cases, the association wrote.

Because habeas cases are complicated — but the need for them is now enormous — immigration attorneys have also worked to train more lawyers on how to file them. Laura Lunn, of the , said she’s hosting a “massive training” at the end of April with the to bring non-immigration lawyers up to speed on writing and filing habeas petitions.

For this story, The Post reviewed scores of habeas petitions and hundreds of pages of court filings, along with publicly available arrest and court data detailing ICE practices. If the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown is a “deportation machine,” as Meyer describes it, then the habeas petitions provide a glimpse into that machine’s inner workings. The filings describe both how immigrants end up in detention as well as the efforts that Trump officials have undertaken to keep them detained.

One man was arrested at an Ace Hardware. A Colombian father was arrested in Lakewood the same day he and his wife were set to close on a house. Several said they were arrested after they showed up for routine immigration check-ins at ICE offices in Colorado. A man from Guinea arrived at his case worker’s office to have his ankle monitor removed and found ICE agents waiting for him instead.

One man showed up for work at the , where he was directed to wait for a new ID badge in a side room, his lawyers later alleged. ICE agents came instead.

Upending nearly three decades of federal law, Manuel and many of those who’ve filed habeas petitions were denied bail during their detention proceedings. That about-face is the primary cause of the habeas crush: Since the mid-1990s, federal immigration authorities and the court system that oversees them would release immigrants who had no criminal record and were arrested within America’s interior.

Under the Trump administration, however, ICE and the courts have moved to keep those immigrants in custody, denying them bail under a separate federal law previously reserved for people arrested at the border.

The that ICE is now employing to block many immigrants from bail also requires mandatory detention — which attorneys argue is the point. Detention centers are like prisons, and 65% of immigrants arrested in Colorado over the past year have never been convicted of a crime. They’re likely not used to facilities like the one in Aurora, where the lights stay on at all times and the food, Manuel said, is often soggy or inedible.

Without access to bail, many detainees choose to leave: Aurora has seen a jump in deportation orders in the past year, including an unprecedented surge in immigrants asking for immediate removal.

Surging cases tied to size of Aurora facility

The increase in Colorado habeas filings is also partially driven by the size of the Aurora detention center, which can hold more than 1,500 people at any one time. It’s one of the largest facilities in the United States and attracts arrestees from across the country — meaning more people seeking release.

Attorneys for a Maryland man said he was arrested after ICE checked license plates in his neighborhood and discovered he had a “derogatory immigration history.” A teenager in New York, brought to the U.S. as a minor, was arrested after he got into a fender-bender in a snowstorm. Several men were arrested during traffic stops in Florida. All eventually were brought to the detention center in Aurora.

The filings detail myriad other ways the Trump administration has sought to keep immigrants detained.

When bail is granted, ICE appeals, prolonging detention for 90 more days. Some people with years-old removal orders have been re-arrested. For years, deportations could be indefinitely delayed if an immigrant successfully argued that they’d be tortured or persecuted if they were returned home. They would often be released and told to check in regularly with federal authorities.

Now, however, ICE will hold those individuals — who are often religious or political minorities, or members of the LGBTQ+ community — while they try to find another country to send them.

The Post reviewed more than a dozen habeas petitions filed in recent months by those immigrants detained in Colorado. Several detainees were transgender and feared they would be harmed or killed if they were returned home. One gay man from a country in North Africa was nearly deported to Cameroon, , before his habeas petition was granted.

If another country won’t take the detainees, then they languish in detention.

For those cases, as well as for detainees seeking bail, “habeas is the only way that most folks are getting out of detention, and more folks are being both arrested and held in detention than ever before,” said Shira Hereld, an attorney with the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network.

Indeed, immigration arrests in Colorado surged nearly 300% during Trump’s first year in office. The Aurora detention center has also flexed to its maximum capacity, and by the end of 2025, the facility regularly housed more than 1,400 people at a time.

Federal judges push back

As the flood of habeas petitions washed into federal courtrooms in Denver, judges have repeatedly rejected ICE’s effort to rewrite federal law and have ordered bail hearings or the immediate release of immigrants. They’ve also ordered the release of some people held indefinitely while ICE searches for a country to take them.

Of the more than 100 habeas petitions that have already been closed this year, a federal judge rejected only one, The Post found, while a few dozen more were duplicates or were dismissed voluntarily.

One attorney wrote to a Colorado judge that ICE’s position has been rejected more than 1,500 times nationwide. In their petitions, some attorneys have taken to listing the individual habeas cases that the Trump administration has lost, a tally that stretches over multiple pages.

In its unsigned statement, the Homeland Security Department said it was “applying the law as written. If an immigration judge finds an illegal alien has no right to be in this country, we are going to remove them. Period.”

In January, U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson wrote that “the court has concluded, many times over,” that ICE’s interpretation was incorrect. In March, U.S. District Judge Regina Rodriguez granted another petition and wrote that she was “once more (joining) the chorus of courts in this district and around the nation that have overwhelmingly rejected (ICE’s) position.”

“Sometimes it is difficult to arrive at conclusions or resolve issues, due, perhaps, to an issue’s complexity, or the lack of guidance available to help resolve it,” U.S. District Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney wrote in another case from January. “Neither circumstance is present here.”

Still, the lower-court rulings have not shifted ICE’s posture, and immigrants arrested in Colorado are still routinely denied bail.

A class-action lawsuit challenging the practice, filed by Meyer, the Denver immigration lawyer, and the , earned an initial favorable ruling but is now awaiting a higher court’s intervention. A judge in California struck down ICE’s new bail policy in December, but that ruling has also been held up as a higher court considers it. Another federal appeals court has backed the policy.

The regional rulings point to a prolonged legal battle.

“This is an alley knife fight,” Meyer said. “It’s going to play out circuit court by circuit court, and then end up at the Supreme Court.”

Until the Supreme Court weighs in, “we’re all running around like chickens with our heads cut off every day,” Lunn said, “because the law changes every day depending on which court rules. And we’re having to bring individual challenges for each and every client when the fundamental issue is these massive policies that impact everybody across the country.”

‘A dream that ended up becoming a nightmare’

In the meantime, the number of habeas cases filed in Colorado will only grow. For people like Javier Campos, it offers the only way out.

In July, ICE agents pulled Campos over in Aurora and arrested him. He spent nearly 100 days in the Aurora detention center before he was released last fall. He lost weight because the food was inedible, he said in an interview. He struggled with Bell’s palsy, a neurological condition that causes paralysis in facial muscles.

Through a translator, Campos described his experience in the immigration system as “disgraceful.” A citizen of Mexico, he’d been in the U.S. for 30 years. He worked in the construction industry. He had a wife, and four children who were U.S. citizens. In another time, detention would have been unlikely, and bail a given.

He was initially granted bail in August — $10,000, a sum far higher than what was typical in previous years, immigration lawyers said. Attorneys for the Department of Homeland Security immediately appealed, blocking Campos’ release for three more months. That prompted the habeas filing.

He was finally released shortly before Thanksgiving, but his immigration case continues.

“A lot of the people would just give up their rights and leave because it gets really difficult to not have money to pay for an attorney,” Campos said. “A lot of people would just give up and leave and be deported. It was very sad seeing the things that went on there because a lot of guys came here for a dream that ended up becoming a nightmare — such a bad nightmare that it would cause stress and nightmares we couldn’t wake up from.”

When a hospital abruptly cuts off lawful care for transgender kids, it tells us that our lives are expendable and not worth as much as another child. This is a dangerous slope that has a real impact, causes real harm, and it is discriminatory, violating Colorado law.

Gender-affirming care saved my life and the lives of many. It allowed me to grow into the successful and fulfilled woman I am today.

I began socially transitioning when I was nine years old. Even at that age, I knew something fundamental about myself: I felt more like a girl than a boy. My family listened. My doctors listened. And that is where this decision should remain: with parents, people like health providers and me. I was able to begin the journey toward becoming comfortable in my own skin. I was among the first patients to receive care at the TRUE Center for Gender Diversity at Children’s Hospital Colorado.

What many people don’t realize is that gender-affirming care is not a single appointment or a rushed decision. It is a thoughtful, medically guided process approved by leading medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association. It involves multiple professionals working together to support a patient¶¶Òőap health.

My journey began with a licensed psychologist who helped me understand my feelings and talk openly about who I was. Later, I was referred to a gender-affirming care specialist who explained how medical transition works and helped determine when I was ready to begin treatment. My care followed established medical standards informed by scientific research and clinical experience supporting transgender patients.

Throughout my transition, my care involved many professionals working together to ensure my safety and well-being. My gender-affirming care specialist coordinated with my pediatrician to monitor my health and conduct blood work. Nurses, therapists, pharmacists, and other providers all played important roles in my care.

Gender-affirming care is often described as controversial. But in practice, it looks like what good health care should be: careful, collaborative, and focused on the needs of the patient.

Medical professionals are only one part of that support system.

When hospitals stop providing gender-affirming care, the consequences ripple far beyond a single clinic or appointment. It disrupts networks of care that help transgender young people stay healthy. It creates uncertainty for families trying to do what is best for their children. And it sends a message to transgender people that their health care is negotiable and lives are expendable.

But for many of us, it is essential.

Gender-affirming care gave me the chance to grow into adulthood feeling comfortable in my own skin. Access to gender-affirming care made it possible for me to live as the woman I always knew I was.

Without that care, my life would look very different.

Every young person deserves the chance to grow up healthy, supported, and able to live as their authentic self.

Colorado has been my home since I was born. Denver has generally been embracing and inclusive of the LGBTQ+ community. Today, because Children’s Hospital Colorado has given into the pressure of the government to halt gender-affirming care, we feel completely abandoned and scared.

Health care is a legal duty — not a risk calculation. No child’s care should ever be sacrificed for political reasons and put in harm’s way.

Jude Clinchard is a Colorado resident and transgender advocate who has spoken publicly about the importance of access to gender-affirming health care.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

An 8-1 high court majority sided with a Christian counselor in Colorado Springs who argues the state law’s ban on talk therapy violates the First Amendment. The justices agreed that the law raises free speech concerns, but didn’t strike it down. They sent the case back to a lower court to decide whether it meets a legal standard that few laws pass.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court, said Colorado’s law “censors speech based on viewpoint.” The First Amendment, he wrote, “stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.”

Gorsuch’s opinion drew support from liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

A state could similarly not ban talk therapy designed to affirm a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity, Kagan wrote. “Once again, because the State has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward,” she wrote.

In a solo dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that states should be free to regulate health care, even if that means incidental restrictions on speech. The decision, Jackson wrote, “opens a dangerous can of worms” that “threatens to impair states’ ability to regulate the provision of medical care in any respect.”

Gov. Jared Polis, in a statement, decried “conversion therapy” as inhumane and said the high court’s ruling will restrict Colorado’s ability to protect LGBTQ people’s right to medical treatment.

“Colorado is for everyone, no matter who you are,” Polis said. “Conversion therapy doesn’t work, can seriously harm youth, and Coloradans should beware before turning over their hard-earned money to a scam. I am evaluating the U.S. Supreme Court ruling and working to figure out how to better protect LGBTQ youth and free speech in Colorado.”

Latest religious discrimination case to reach court

The decision is the latest in a line of recent cases in which the justices have while taking a skeptical view of LGBTQ+ rights.

Counselor Kaley Chiles, with support from President Donald Trump’s Republican administration, said the law wrongly bars her from offering voluntary, faith-based therapy for kids.

Chiles contends her approach is different from “conversion therapy” practices from decades ago, like shock therapy. Her attorneys argued that the ban makes it hard for parents to find therapists willing to discuss gender identity with kids unless the counseling affirms transition.

“This ruling means Colorado cannot insert itself into the counseling room and silence important views that clients want to hear,” Chiles said in a video call with reporters. “…Kids deserve better than a one-way path to dangerous body-altering drugs and surgeries, and more counselors should say so.”

But health organizations around the world — including the , the and the — have denounced “conversion therapy” and pointed to the harms of trying to alter a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including increased risks of depression, sexual problems, low self-esteem and suicide.

“Conversion therapy is unsafe, ineffective and rooted in the dangerous lie that LGBTQ+ kids must be ‘fixed,’” said Claudia PĂ©rez, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains’ director of public affairs. “…This ruling is not an isolated blow; it is part of a sweeping and coordinated effort to undermine LGBTQ+ safety and autonomy across the country, echoing recent decisions restricting evidence‑based care for transgender young people.”

Colorado argued in the Supreme Court case that its law does allow wide-ranging conversations about gender identity and sexual orientation and exempts religious ministries. The state says the measure simply bars using therapy to try to “convert” LGBTQ+ people to heterosexuality or traditional gender expectations, a practice that has been scientifically discredited and linked to serious harm.

Attorney General Phil Weiser said in a statement that “conversion therapy” has long been rejected as “unsafe and ineffective,” and that the state’s law is meant to protect minors.

“For generations, states have set and enforced standards to ensure that licensed professionals provide safe and appropriate care,” Weiser said. “We strongly disagree with the court¶¶Òőap reasoning and are carefully reviewing the decision to assess its full impact on Colorado law and on our responsibility to protect consumers and patients.”

The law doesn’t violate the First Amendment, Colorado argued in the case, because therapy is different from other types of speech since it’s a form of health care that the state has a responsibility to regulate.

Advocates for LGBTQ+ people condemned the ruling, as well as “conversion therapy.”

Tamora Tanniehill, director of programs and services of Rocky Mountain Equality, said she was “sickened” by the ruling.

“Holding state regulations on pseudoscientific practices such as conversion therapy to a strict scrutiny standard is far-reaching, unethical and poses meaningful risks to the ability of state governments and professional associations to regulate dangerous and disproven medical practices,” she said. “This decision is another strategic step to further dismantle and undermine life-saving professional and healthcare standards that protect privacy and families’ abilities to make health care decisions.”

‘A significant win for free speech’

The 2019 law carries the possibility of fines and license suspension, but no one has been sanctioned under it. The ruling is expected to eventually make similar laws in other states unenforceable.

Chiles was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization that has appeared frequently at the court in recent years. The group also represented a Christian website designer who successfully challenged Colorado’s anti-discrimination law because she didn’t want to work with same-sex couples.

“Kids deserve real help affirming that their bodies are not a mistake and that they are wonderfully made,” Alliance Defending Freedom chief legal counsel Jim Campbell said in a statement Tuesday morning. “The U.S. Supreme Court¶¶Òőap decision today is a significant win for free speech, common sense and families desperate to help their children.”

Colorado legislators are sponsoring a new bill that would allow people to pursue civil action against licensed mental health professionals or anyone who hired them for damages sustained while undergoing “conversion therapy.” The bill, , would allow the victim to bring the civil action at any time.

Rep. Alex Valdez, D-Denver, and Rep. Karen McCormick, D-Longmont, the House sponsors of the bill, shared their disappointment with the Supreme Court’s ruling Tuesday.

“We will say it loud and clear — conversion therapy does not work, and many mental health and medical organizations agree that conversion therapy is ineffective and harmful,” the statement read. “The LGBTQ+ community already faces higher rates of depression and suicide, and conversion therapy only makes things worse.”

Twenty-three states have laws barring health care providers from offering “conversion therapy” for minors, and another four have some restrictions, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an advocacy group that tracks policies that impact LGBTQ+ people.

The high court agreed to hear the case after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld the law. Another Atlanta-based appeals court, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, had struck down similar bans in Florida.

GENEVA (AP) — Transgender women athletes are now excluded from women’s events at the Olympics after the IOC agreed to a new eligibility policy on Thursday which aligns with U.S. President Donald Trump’s  on sports ahead of the 2028 Los Angeles Games.

“Eligibility for any female category event at the Olympic Games or any other IOC event, including individual and team sports, is now limited to biological females,” the International Olympic Committee said, to be determined by a mandatory gene test once in an athlete’s career.

It is unclear how many, if any, transgender women are competing at an Olympic level. No woman who transitioned from being born male competed at the 2024 Paris Summer Games, though  did at the Tokyo Olympics in 2021 without winning a medal.

The eligibility policy that will apply from the L.A. Olympics in July 2028 “protects fairness, safety and integrity in the female category,” the IOC said.

“It is not retroactive and does not apply to any grassroots or recreational sports programs,” said the IOC, whose  states that access to play sport is a human right.

After an executive board meeting, the IOC published a  that also restricts female athletes such as two-time Olympic champion runner Caster Semenya with medical conditions known as differences in sex development, or DSD.

“We know that this topic is sensitive,” IOC President Kirsty Coventry said in an online news conference to explain the policy.

Coventry and the IOC have wanted a clear policy instead of continuing to advise sports’ governing bodies who previously have drafted their own rules.

“At the Olympic Games, even the smallest margins can be the difference between victory and defeat,” Coventry, a two-time Olympic gold medalist in swimming, said in a statement. “So, it is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category.”

She set up a review of “protecting the female category” as one of her first big decisions last June as the  in its 132-year history.

Female eligibility was a strong theme in a  last year — held after a  in Paris — when Coventry’s main rivals pledged a stronger policy to leading on the issue.

“This was a priority for me way before President Trump came into his second term,” Coventry said. “There’s not been any pressure (on) us to deliver anything from anybody outside of the Olympic Movement.”

Before the 2024 Paris Olympics, three top-tier sports — , swimming and cycling — excluded transgender women who had been through male puberty. Semenya, who was assigned female at birth in South Africa and has testosterone levels higher than the typical female range,  in her years-long legal challenge to track and field’s rules which did not overturn them.

Performance advantage from testosterone

The IOC document details its research that being born male gives physical advantages that a working group of experts believes are retained.

“Males experience three significant testosterone peaks: In utero, in mini-puberty of infancy and beginning in adolescent puberty through adulthood,” the document said.

It added this gives males “individual sex-based performance advantages in sports and events that rely on strength, power and/or endurance.”

The IOC said its research included “in-depth individual interviews with impacted athletes from around the world.”

The expert group agreed the current gene test is “the most accurate and least intrusive method currently available.” The saliva, cheek swab or blood sample screens for “the SRY gene, a segment of DNA typically found on the Y chromosome that initiates male sex development in utero and indicates the presence of testes/testicles.”

Still, the mandatory gender screening — already conducted by the governing bodies of track and field,  and boxing — is likely to be criticized by human rights experts and activist groups.

Athlete appeal to CAS?

The IOC policy can — and likely will — be challenged at the Court of Arbitration for Sport in the Olympic body’s Swiss home city Lausanne, perhaps by an athlete acting alone.

Track athletes  of India and Semenya challenged previous versions of their sport’s eligibility rules at the court.

Any potential appeal would examine science underpinning IOC research which was not published Thursday. A case could occupy much of the near-28 months until the L.A. Olympics open.

“As we know in today’s world,” Coventry said, “any and all rules and regulations at any point in time could always be challenged.”

Women’s boxing champions

One of the two women’s boxing gold medalists at the center of the gender controversy in Paris, Lin Yu-ting of Taiwan, has  and can return to competition, the World Boxing governing body said last week.

The other Olympic boxing champion, Imane Khelif of Algeria,  she would take a gene test to be eligible for the L.A. Olympics. She is reportedly preparing for a professional bout next month in Paris.

The IOC document published on Thursday said the male performance advantage over biological women was “10-12% in most running and swimming events,” at least 20% in “most throwing and jumping events” but “can be greater than 100%” for explosive power events including “punching sports.”

Trump’s executive order

In the U.S., President Trump signed the executive order “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” in February last year, and pledged to deny visas to some athletes attempting to compete at the L.A Olympics. The order also threatened to “rescind all funds” from organizations that allowed transgender athletes to take part in women’s sports.

Within months the  to national sports bodies citing an obligation to comply with the White House.

The White House welcomed the IOC’s decision, describing it as the result of the executive order.

“The IOC aligning their policy with President Trump’s executive order ahead of the 2028 LA Games is common sense and long overdue,” White House spokesman Davis Ingle said in a statement.

AP Winter Olympics at

Saturday. The touring screening of “The Princess Bride” with star Cary Elwes is finally coming to Denver, having been postponed from Dec. 27, 2025. The shows at 1 and 7 p.m. on Saturday, March 28, both feature the 1987 movie and Elwes, who played the dashing Westley, on stage after the credits roll. He’ll talk about the film’s best behind-the-scenes moments — including working with director Rob Reiner, who died tragically last year along with his wife, Michele.

The “Inconceivable Evening,” as it’s called, takes place at the Paramount Theatre, 1621 Glenarm Place in downtown Denver. All previously purchased tickets will be honored, and new ones are on sale for $39-$54 at .

Frozen Dead Guy Days

Various activities and entrance fees are covered with tickets starting at $55. Some events are free to attend. Estes Park Events Complex, 1125 Rooftop Way in Estes Park. Free parking at 691 N. St. Vrain Ave. includes shuttles to the event. See the full list of bar crawls, brunches, a polar plunge and more at .

Meow Wolf’s trash-fashion

Thursday. Meow Wolf Denver is bringing back its trash-fashion show this month with “Absolute Rubbish: EXTRA Terrestrials.” The immersive-entertainment company’s alien theme fits well within the surreal sculptures at its Denver outpost as designers and models take the stage at its Perplexiplex venue for a night of beautiful and bizarre creations. Names this time range from Andrea Fischer and Autumn Olive Crochet to starrsprite and Wimsysways.

The 8 p.m., 18-and-up show on April 2 is hosted by Alisha Sweeney from Indie 102.3, with music from DJ Blaque Gurl and a show from performance artist Gale Force. 1338 First St. in Denver. Learn more and buy tickets, $44.75, at .

Denver Gay Men’s Chorus

Friday-Saturday. Last month, the Denver Gay Men’s Chorus renamed its spring show from “Party in the USA” to the more civic-minded “The Pursuit of Happiness: Warding the Freedoms of America,” in response to the current national climate, producers said. “We could not move forward without embracing a new charge: to protect those who need protecting, to stand firm in the face of tyranny, and to fight, as our forefamilies have done, in our pursuit of happiness,” according to the 40-plus-year-old LGBTQ organization.

That gives its performances on Friday, March 27, and Saturday, March 28, a bit more social urgency, though the chorus will no doubt inject the same joyous vigor and skill that it is known for. The musical showcase takes place at 7:30 p.m. on Friday and 2 and 7:30 p.m. on Saturday at the Elaine Wolf Theatre at the Staenberg-Loup Jewish Community Center, 350 S Dahlia St. Tickets are $27-$43 via .

, the advocacy group backing the initiative, submitted nearly 165,000 signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. The measure needed about 125,000 to qualify. It is the third of three measures backed by the advocacy group and the second specifically concerning transgender people.

The measure would ban health care professionals from knowingly performing, prescribing or providing surgery to minors “for the purpose of altering biological sex characteristics.” Those types of surgeries have been extremely low, despite the attention they receive.

In 2019, there were 2.1 reported gender-affirming surgeries per 100,000 children aged 15-17 across the country, according to published by the American Medical Association. There were nearly zero such surgeries performed on children aged 13 and 14, and zero performed on children 12 and younger.

Protect Kids Colorado has also won a spot on the ballot for an initiative to ban transgender youth and adults from competing on interscholastic or intramural sports teams that don’t align with their sex assigned at birth, and an initiative to require life sentences for people convicted of child sex trafficking.

Each measure would need a simple majority of support from voters to become law in 2027.

Erin Lee, executive director of Protect Kids Colorado, has previously praised volunteers for gathering the signatures.

“Protecting children is not a partisan issue; it¶¶Òőap a moral one,” she said when the proposal about trans athletes qualified for the ballot.

The measures have also drawn immediate opposition from LGBTQ+ rights organizations and supporters. Opponents of the measure have formed to oppose the measures.

“Now that these measures have qualified for the ballot, voters should know what¶¶Òőap at stake,” Nadine Bridges, executive director of One Colorado, said in a statement issued by the opposition committee. “Coloradans have always valued individual freedom and the rights of families to make private decisions without political interference, but these measures would go against those core values. ”

, the advocacy group backing , submitted nearly 169,000 signatures to petition the measure onto the ballot. The measure needed about 125,000 to qualify. The Colorado Secretary of State’s Office validated the petitions Monday.

The ballot measure seeks to define males and females based on their biological reproductive systems, and prohibit them from competing on K-12 and college sports teams that don’t comport with their sex assigned at birth. The measure would need a simple majority of votes this November to become law in 2027.

Earlier this month, Protect Kids Colorado secured a spot on the ballot for a measure to require life sentences for people convicted of child sex trafficking.

The group has also submitted signatures for a ballot measure that would prohibit gender-affirming surgery for transgender children and minors younger than 18. The Secretary of State’s Office has not yet ruled on that measure.

“What we have accomplished together is only the beginning,” Erin Lee, executive director of Protect Kids Colorado, said in a statement. “More than 3,000 Coloradans from every walk of life, collecting more than half a million signatures, stepped forward with their time, talent and treasure because protecting children is not a partisan issue; it¶¶Òőap a moral one. Two qualified, one more to go!”

The proposed ban on transgender youth competing on teams that match their gender identity immediately drew outcry from , an LGBTQ+ rights organization. Mardi Moore, the group’s chief executive officer, said the measure “is not rooted in Colorado values,” and that the legislature has shot down .

“This is an attack on Colorado families modeled after national extremist efforts. Coloradans believe in fairness, freedom, and the right of every person to live their lives,” Moore said in a statement. “We will work tirelessly between now and November to make sure voters understand exactly what this effort is about. It¶¶Òőap about bullying little kids and taking opportunities away from a handful of people.”

The for years has recognized the right of transgender athletes to play on sports teams that match their gender identities. Following a lawsuit, however, the organization agreed last year not to penalize school districts with transgender athlete bans.

In January, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case challenging the legality of bans on transgender girls and women playing school sports in Idaho and West Virginia. The justices states to enact such prohibitions.