The Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling in Chiles v. Salazar on March 31, 2026, reshaped conversion therapy ban enforcement nationwide.
Wisconsin's Koschnick v. Evers lawsuit, filed May 2026, directly challenges an MFT licensing board rule as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
AAMFT ethics standards oppose conversion therapy, yet state licensing boards have issued almost no MFT-specific disciplinary actions.
Faith-based counseling remains permissible under current bans if the therapist does not pursue sexual orientation or gender identity change as a treatment goal.
Two Supreme Court rulings in less than a year (the 8-1 decision in *Chiles v. Salazar* in March 2026 and the precedent cited in Wisconsin's May 2026 lawsuit) have rewritten the constitutional boundaries around state conversion therapy bans. Licensed marriage and family therapists now face a patchwork of state rules, conflicting legal theories, and professional association positions that no longer align neatly with enforceable law. In at least four states, statutes remain on the books but are unenforceable pending litigation; in others, boards have withdrawn enforcement guidance entirely.
For LMFTs specifically, the compliance stakes are higher because family systems work often involves minors, parents with religious objections, and treatment goals shaped by relational rather than individual autonomy. The AAMFT Code of Ethics has not changed, but the legal floor beneath it has cracked. A therapist who followed yesterday's best practices may face exposure today if clients cross state lines or if telehealth sessions trigger multi-state jurisdiction. Understanding your LMFT continuing education requirements by state is now only one piece of a much larger compliance puzzle.
What Conversion Therapy Bans Mean for Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists
Conversion therapy, in clinical terms specific to marriage and family therapy practice, refers to any systematic effort by a licensed therapist to change a client's sexual orientation or gender identity. State regulations and professional standards use the broader term SOGIECE (sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts) to describe these prohibited interventions. For MFTs, understanding the precise boundaries of these bans is essential because family therapy inherently involves exploration of identity, values, and relational dynamics that must remain clearly distinguished from prohibited change efforts.
Defining the Line Between SOGIECE and Legitimate Therapeutic Work
The critical distinction for practicing MFTs lies in therapeutic intent and method. Conversion therapy encompasses techniques designed to alter, suppress, or eliminate a client's same-sex attractions or gender identity through aversion conditioning, shame-based interventions, or directed behavioral modification. Legitimate therapeutic exploration, by contrast, includes helping clients process their feelings about identity, navigate family-of-origin conflicts, explore values alignment, or work through distress related to their experiences. A client questioning their identity or seeking to understand religious teachings alongside their sexuality is not receiving conversion therapy when the therapist remains neutral and client-directed rather than outcome-focused toward heterosexuality or cisgender identification. MFTs who want to deepen their competence in this area should consider LGBTQ affirming therapy training.
Which License Categories Fall Under These Bans
Most state conversion therapy prohibitions apply to the full spectrum of MFT licensure categories:
LMFT (Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist): Fully licensed practitioners face direct regulatory consequences for violations.
LMFT-Associate or Intern: Pre-licensure practitioners working under supervision are equally bound by these restrictions.
MFT Trainees: Graduate students in supervised clinical placements must comply, with violations potentially affecting both the trainee and their supervisor.
Notably, pastoral counselors and unlicensed religious counselors typically fall outside these regulatory frameworks. The exemption applies because state licensing boards lack jurisdiction over unlicensed practitioners, though some jurisdictions are expanding coverage.
How MFT Regulatory Oversight Differs From Other Professions
MFTs operate under distinct regulatory structures compared to licensed professional counselors or social workers. Many states house MFT oversight within combined Marriage, Professional Counselor, and Social Worker (MPSW) boards, but MFTs remain governed by profession-specific administrative codes. Wisconsin's MPSW 20.02(25), currently under legal challenge, applies specifically to each licensed category within that board's jurisdiction rather than creating uniform requirements across professions. This means disciplinary procedures, reporting obligations, and enforcement mechanisms may vary even when the underlying prohibition language appears similar.
Scope of Coverage: Minors and Vulnerable Adults
Most conversion therapy bans target services provided to minors under 18, reflecting legislative focus on protecting young people who may lack full autonomy in treatment decisions. However, several jurisdictions extend protections to vulnerable adults, including those under conservatorship or experiencing cognitive impairment. For family therapists, this scope matters significantly because the identified client in family systems work may shift during treatment. When a family enters therapy with an adolescent as the presenting concern, the MFT must recognize that the minor client's protections remain in force regardless of whether parents request identity-focused interventions.
State-by-State Conversion Therapy Laws Affecting MFTs in 2026
The map of conversion therapy regulation looks very different in mid-2026 than it did a year ago. The Supreme Court's decision in *Chiles v. Salazar* pulled the constitutional ground out from under several state bans while leaving others standing for now.1 For licensed MFTs, the practical question is no longer just "does my state have a ban," but "is the ban currently enforceable, and what happens when I treat a client across state lines?"
States with Bans Still in Effect
Full statutory bans on licensed providers treating minors remain on the books and are being enforced in California, New York, Illinois, Washington, Oregon, and the District of Columbia.2 Each of these applies directly to marriage and family therapists licensed in the state. Each is also legally vulnerable: the reasoning in *Chiles*, which treated such laws as viewpoint-based regulation of professional speech, gives challengers a clear roadmap. MFTs in these jurisdictions should continue to comply with the existing rule but should expect litigation activity over the next 12 to 24 months.
For telehealth, the governing principle in every banning state is the client's location at the time of the session.3 A Texas-based LMFT who sees a 16-year-old client physically located in California is bound by California's ban during that session, regardless of where the therapist is licensed or where the practice is incorporated.
States Where Bans Have Been Struck Down or Limited
Colorado's ban was the direct subject of *Chiles* and is no longer enforceable.1 Michigan's statutory ban was blocked by the Sixth Circuit, though funding-based restrictions on Medicaid and state-contracted services remain in force.1 Virginia's ban survives on paper, but a consent decree has gutted enforcement of its key provisions, leaving MFTs there subject only to general professional standards of care.
States with Funding-Only or Preemption Approaches
Pennsylvania never had a statutory ban but uses executive orders and licensing board resolutions to bar state funding for change efforts.2 Because these are funding conditions rather than speech restrictions, they are likely to survive post-*Chiles*. Pennsylvania MFTs accepting state contracts or Medicaid should treat the restriction as binding.
Indiana and Tennessee took the opposite path: preemption laws that prohibit municipalities from enacting local bans.3 Neither state has a statewide prohibition, and Kentucky joined this group after the legislature rescinded the prior executive order. In all three, MFTs are not subject to a state-level conversion therapy statute, though AAMFT ethical standards and general malpractice exposure still apply.
Resources from the Equality Map: Conversion Therapy Laws and Temple University's Conversion Therapy Laws Dataset are useful for tracking week-to-week changes as new challenges are filed.
Questions to Ask Yourself
Do you provide telehealth services to clients in states with different conversion therapy ban statuses than your home state?
Licensing board jurisdiction typically follows the client's location. If that state has a ban, you could face discipline for interventions allowed in your home state.
Have you reviewed your state's administrative code, not just the statute, for conversion therapy provisions since the Chiles ruling?
Many bans live in administrative code, not statute. Even though Chiles calls these rules into question, boards may still enforce them, putting your license at risk.
If a parent requests help 'correcting' a child's sexual orientation or gender identity, do you have a documented protocol for responding?
Without a clear, ethics-based response, you risk breaching professional standards or losing the family's trust. A documented protocol keeps you compliant and centered on client welfare.
Chiles v. Salazar and the New Legal Landscape for Therapy Bans
The legal framework governing conversion therapy bans shifted dramatically on March 31, 2026, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-1 ruling in Chiles v. Salazar.1 The Court held that Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors, when applied to talk therapy, constitutes unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. This landmark decision does not strike down the Colorado statute outright, but it remands the case and instructs lower courts to apply strict scrutiny, a demanding standard that fundamentally changes how such laws are evaluated.
The Supreme Court's Ruling: Strict Scrutiny for Talk Therapy Bans
The heart of Chiles is the determination that state regulation of therapeutic speech must survive strict scrutiny. Under this test, a state must prove both that the law serves a compelling government interest and that it is narrowly tailored to achieve that end, using the least restrictive means possible. This is a far higher bar than the rational-basis review that courts had previously applied to many conversion therapy bans. The majority found that Colorado's law, which prohibited any effort to change a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity through talk therapy, impermissibly targeted the content of speech rather than specific harmful conduct.2 Because the ban was not limited to coercive or physically abusive practices, the Court concluded it could not stand under strict scrutiny.
For licensed marriage and family therapists, this ruling directly challenges the enforceability of broadly written bans in multiple states. MFTs pursuing LMFT Colorado requirements should note that statutes relying on blanket prohibitions of verbal interventions, even those that are non-coercive and client-initiated, are now legally vulnerable. The decision underscores that professional speech, especially within a private therapeutic relationship, enjoys robust constitutional protection.
Immediate Impact: A Legal Landscape in Flux
Despite the weight of Chiles, the practical consequences have unfolded slowly. As of mid-2026, no state has amended or suspended its conversion therapy ban in direct response to the ruling, and no new Chiles-based legal challenges have been filed against existing state laws.3 Likewise, no state has yet enacted a new, narrowly tailored ban designed to survive strict scrutiny. This pause may reflect uncertainty among state legislatures and licensing boards about how to proceed. The ruling itself was an as-applied challenge, not a facial invalidation, meaning it does not automatically void conversion therapy bans everywhere.
Crucially, the Court distinguished between talk therapy and harmful physical practices. The physical coercion or aversive techniques sometimes associated with conversion therapy remain regulable as conduct. States still retain authority to prohibit actions that cause tangible harm, so long as their statutes do not trespass on the content of private dialogue between a voluntary client and a licensed professional.1
What MFTs Should Watch For
The lone dissenting justice argued that the state has a compelling interest in protecting minors from therapies deemed harmful by the medical establishment, and that the Colorado law was sufficiently narrow. However, the majority's emphasis on viewpoint neutrality means that MFTs working with clients who voluntarily seek faith-based or identity-exploration counseling may have stronger legal footing to provide such services, provided no coercive or physically dangerous methods are involved. The Wisconsin lawsuit filed in May 2026 (discussed in the following section) illustrates how this precedent is already being leveraged.
Looking ahead, MFTs should monitor three developments: whether states with broad bans face fresh litigation, whether legislatures attempt to draft new bans targeting only ethically prohibited conduct rather than speech, and how professional licensing boards interpret their discipline authority in light of Chiles. For now, the ruling reaffirms that therapeutic conversation, even when it involves deeply personal values, is not easily stripped of constitutional protection.
Wisconsin Lawsuit Challenges MFT Conversion Therapy Ban
On May 31, 2026, the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty filed a federal civil rights lawsuit, *Koschnick v. Evers* (Case No. 2:26-cv-00833), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.1 The case directly targets Wisconsin Administrative Code § MPSW 20.02(25), a rule that prohibits licensed therapists from providing counseling aimed at reducing unwanted same-sex attraction or exploring alternatives to gender transition.2
Who Filed and Why
The plaintiffs are Terri Koschnick, a licensed marriage and family therapist based in Oconomowoc, and Joy Buchman, a licensed professional counselor based in La Crosse. Both provide talk therapy that integrates Christian faith, and both serve only clients who voluntarily seek that approach. Their complaint argues that the Wisconsin rule bans certain conversations outright while permitting counseling that affirms gender transition or same-sex attraction, creating an unconstitutional imbalance based on viewpoint.2 Understanding the LMFT vs LPC distinction matters here, because the challenged regulation applies to both credential types.
Koschnick put the professional autonomy concern plainly: "Government officials should not be allowed to police the private conversations I have with my clients who voluntarily seek out my advice as a Christian counselor."
The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief on First Amendment grounds, framing the regulation as viewpoint discrimination and an unconstitutional content-based restriction on therapeutic speech. Due process claims are also raised.2
The Legal Theory: Following Chiles v. Salazar
WILL's legal strategy leans heavily on the 8-1 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in *Chiles v. Salazar*, which struck down Colorado's nearly identical conversion therapy ban as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. WILL Deputy Counsel Rebecca Furdek has stated that Wisconsin's rule is "materially indistinguishable" from the Colorado law. If that argument holds in the Eastern District, it could invalidate Wisconsin's ban and set a template for challenges in other states with comparable regulations.
Scope and Implications for MFTs
The challenged rule applies not just to counselors but to all marriage and family therapists and social workers licensed by the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services. That breadth matters: any disciplinary action taken against an MFT under this rule could now face First Amendment scrutiny.
As of early June 2026, the case is in its opening stage. No answer or Rule 12 motion has been filed by the defendants, who include Governor Tony Evers and several members of the state licensing board. No preliminary injunction has been sought or granted, and no amicus briefs have been filed.1
For MFTs practicing in Wisconsin or in states with similar bans, this case is worth watching closely. The outcome could clarify whether faith-integrated, client-directed counseling falls within First Amendment protection, a question with direct implications for how MFT training programs address the boundaries of ethical and lawful practice.
AAMFT, APA, and Professional Association Positions on Conversion Therapy
Every major mental health professional organization in the United States now formally opposes conversion therapy, but for licensed marriage and family therapists, only one set of ethical standards carries direct professional authority: the AAMFT's.
AAMFT's Position: The Binding Standard for MFTs
The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy has stated unequivocally that same-sex orientation is not a mental disorder and that gender identity and sexual orientation change efforts (GICE) are harmful and unethical.1 AAMFT's official position, grounded in its longstanding policy and the broader health-professional consensus, requires members to provide evidence-based affirming care rather than interventions aimed at altering a client's sexual orientation or gender identity.
The AAMFT Code of Ethics reinforces this stance through several core provisions. The duty to avoid harm obligates therapists to act in each client's best interest, which AAMFT interprets as incompatible with change efforts that research has linked to depression, anxiety, and suicidality.2 Standards requiring evidence-based, competent practice mean that clinicians must ground their work in the best available research and clinical evidence, not discredited models. Non-discrimination provisions further prohibit treating sexual orientation or gender identity as pathology.
Members who practice GICE face real consequences. AAMFT has made clear that such conduct may trigger ethical review and disciplinary action, up to and including loss of membership and the professional standing that accompanies it.2 The association also participated in an amicus brief in *United States v. Skrmetti* in 2025, signaling its willingness to engage the courts directly on these issues.1 Additionally, AAMFT supports gender-affirming care and directs therapists who feel unable to provide it to refer clients to a qualified provider rather than withhold or redirect treatment.
APA, NASW, and ACA: Important Context, Different Authority
The American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the American Counseling Association each maintain their own opposition statements. The APA's resolution, for example, draws on its 2009 task force report concluding that change efforts are ineffective and carry significant risk. NASW and ACA hold comparable positions.
However, none of these organizations govern MFT licensure or MFT-specific ethical complaints. Their positions matter as part of the broader professional consensus, and state licensing boards sometimes reference them, but they do not create binding obligations for AAMFT members the way AAMFT's own code does. MFTs should understand the distinction: if a licensing board complaint references "professional standards," the AAMFT Code of Ethics is the document most directly applicable to your practice. Familiarity with the full scope of LMFT license requirements ensures you know exactly which standards govern your credential.
One gap that most compliance guides overlook is the way AAMFT's systems-oriented ethical framework differs from the individually focused frameworks of the APA or ACA. Marriage and family therapy centers on relational systems, meaning clinicians routinely work with couples, parents, and extended family units where members may hold conflicting goals around identity, values, and family cohesion.
This creates clinical scenarios that do not arise as cleanly in individual therapy. When a parent seeks family therapy hoping a child will "change," or when one spouse's goals for couples therapy conflict with affirming care standards, the MFT must navigate prohibited change efforts within a relational context. AAMFT's ethical provisions require therapists to protect each individual's wellbeing within the family system, not to privilege one member's desired outcome over another's autonomy and safety. Clinicians who want a deeper look at how various evidence based family therapy modalities intersect with these obligations will find the framework especially relevant. Understanding this relational lens is essential for staying on the right side of both ethics and the law.
Post-Chiles Guidance: A Notable Silence
Following the Supreme Court's ruling in *Chiles v. Salazar* in March 2026, which applied strict scrutiny to conversion therapy bans, many MFTs expected professional associations to issue updated guidance addressing the new legal landscape. As of mid-2026, AAMFT has not released new statements or revised its ethical standards in direct response to the decision.1 The association's existing position remains in effect, and its ethical obligations on members have not changed. MFTs should monitor AAMFT's position statements page for any forthcoming updates, but the current expectation is clear: GICE remains a violation of AAMFT ethical standards regardless of shifts in state law. A court ruling that a particular statute is unconstitutional does not alter your professional association's ethical code or the disciplinary authority that backs it.
Public disciplinary records reveal surprisingly few conversion therapy enforcement actions against MFTs. Virginia revoked one counselor's license in 2021, and Pennsylvania adopted a policy statement in May 2024, but no other state boards have publicized MFT-specific sanctions. This absence likely reflects confidential complaint processes, recent ban adoption timelines, and inconsistent enforcement mechanisms rather than universal compliance. The profession should demand transparent reporting standards to clarify how conversion therapy prohibitions are actually enforced in practice.
Ethical Practice: Affirming Care vs. Prohibited Change Efforts in Family Therapy
The line between affirming therapeutic care and a prohibited conversion effort is not always obvious in the room, but it almost always becomes clear when you examine one question: whose agenda is driving the outcome? Affirming care follows the client's own goals for their life and relationships. A conversion effort, by contrast, steers the client toward a predetermined sexual orientation or gender identity, regardless of what the client has actually asked for.
Clinical Do's and Don'ts
The distinction plays out in concrete moments during sessions:
Affirming: Exploring a client's confusion, curiosity, or distress about their identity, letting the client lead and holding the uncertainty with them.
Prohibited: Promising or implying that continued therapy will move a client toward a heterosexual or cisgender identity, or framing same-sex attraction as a symptom to be resolved.
Affirming: Helping a couple navigate the relational impact of one partner coming out, including grief, value differences, and questions about the future of the relationship.
Prohibited: Treating the LGBTQ+ partner as the clinical problem and organizing sessions around changing or suppressing that partner's identity.
The second example matters especially for marriage and family therapists, whose work is inherently relational. Relational distress is a legitimate focus. Assigning pathology to one partner's identity is not.
When Parents Bring Minors with a Change Agenda
One of the most challenging situations for MFTs occurs when a parent presents a minor client and asks you to help the child "be normal" or align with family values around sexuality or gender. A workable redirect sounds like this: "I hear how much you want your child to be okay. My role is to help your family communicate and strengthen your relationship with each other. Let's start by understanding what your child is experiencing and what support would look like for all of you."
Document this exchange in your session notes with specificity: the parent's stated request, your clinical response, and the direction you established for treatment. That documentation protects the client, demonstrates your compliance with applicable law, and creates a clear record if a licensing complaint is later filed. For a deeper look at how clinicians can center the client's wellbeing in these scenarios, see our guide on LGBTQ+ affirming mental health care.
Sexual Intimacy and Marital Work Involving SOGI Topics
Therapists can address sexual satisfaction, desire discrepancies, intimacy avoidance, and values conflicts in couples work without attempting to alter anyone's orientation. The clinical goal is relational functioning, not identity modification. Clinicians trained in emotionally focused therapy or other structured approaches can hold space for disclosure and relational repair while staying well within ethical boundaries. If a spouse discloses a same-sex attraction and the couple wants to explore what that means for their marriage, that is legitimate relational work. Telling the disclosing spouse to suppress or pray away the attraction crosses into prohibited territory in states with active bans.
Mandated Reporting When Conversion Practices Occur Outside Your Office
If a minor client discloses that they are being subjected to conversion practices by an unlicensed religious practitioner, a family member, or anyone outside your therapy relationship, your mandatory reporting obligations come into focus. Whether this triggers a report depends on your state's framework.
In states where conversion practices on minors are classified as a form of abuse or neglect under child welfare statutes, a disclosure of ongoing external conversion efforts may meet the threshold for a mandated report to child protective services. In states where the ban exists only as a licensing restriction on professionals, the same disclosure may not meet the statutory definition of reportable abuse, though you should consult your state's guidance and, if needed, your licensing board.
The practical step is to know your state's definition of reportable harm before this situation arises, not after. Review your state's child abuse reporting statute alongside any conversion therapy-specific legislation, and document your reasoning whenever you assess and do not report. That documentation is your first line of defense if the decision is later questioned.
MFT Compliance Checklist: Documentation, Informed Consent, and Risk Management Post-Chiles
Faith-Based Counseling, Religious Exemptions, and MFT Practice
Can a licensed MFT integrate Christian faith, Jewish tradition, Islamic teaching, or any other religious framework into therapy without violating a state conversion therapy ban? The short answer: yes, but only if the work stops short of trying to change a client's sexual orientation or gender identity.
Where Religious Exemptions Actually Apply
Nearly every state ban on conversion therapy carves out unlicensed pastoral and religious counselors who operate outside the scope of professional licensure. Clergy, lay ministers, and church-based counseling that does not hold itself out as mental health treatment generally fall outside the rules. That exemption almost never extends to licensed MFTs. Once you hold an LMFT credential, your state board regulates your clinical conduct regardless of whether your office sits inside a church, a faith-based agency, or a private practice that markets to Christian, Muslim, or Orthodox Jewish clients. A handful of states have considered broader religious exemptions for licensed clinicians, but as of 2026 no state has enacted one that shields an LMFT from discipline for providing change-directed interventions. The *Chiles* decision may reopen this question in litigation, but it has not rewritten state licensing rules on its own.
What Faith-Integrated Practice Can Look Like
The permissible territory is wide. MFTs can explore a client's faith-based distress about sexual orientation or gender identity, help a client reconcile religious commitments with their identity, pray with a client who requests it, use scripture or sacred text as a clinical reference point, and refer to clergy for spiritual direction. The boundary is the goal: faith becomes a problem when it is used as the framework for an intervention aimed at altering orientation or gender identity. The Koschnick model, an LMFT working only with voluntary adult Christian clients, sits in a contested zone. Faith-integrated affirming care is clearly permissible. Change-directed counseling is clearly prohibited under Wisconsin's rule. What remains legally unsettled after *Chiles* is whether viewpoint-based restrictions on what a clinician can say in a voluntary adult session survive First Amendment scrutiny. Clinicians interested in building competence at this intersection should explore lgbtq affirming therapy certification programs.
Training That Bridges Faith and Affirming Care
Several CE providers address this intersection directly:
Denver Family Institute LGBTQ+ Behavioral Health Provider Training: 10 CE credits, recognized under Colorado DORA and endorsed by NASW-CO.1
Modern Sex Therapy Institutes LGBTQIA Affirmative Certification: 54 hours of advanced affirmative practice content.2
AAMFT Online Education: roughly 85 courses tailored to MFTs, including ethics and diversity content.3
OutCare Health and SAGECare: CME/CEU programming used to satisfy state-required affirming-care training in healthcare settings.45
Texas LMFTs should also note that CE Broker became the official tracking system on January 1, 2026, under the Texas Behavioral Health Executive Council, so affirming-care credits need to be logged there to count toward renewal.6
Frequently Asked Questions About Conversion Therapy Bans and MFT Practice
Conversion therapy bans raise practical questions for licensed marriage and family therapists navigating compliance, ethics, and evolving legal standards. The following answers reflect the legal and professional landscape as of mid-2026, including the landmark Supreme Court decision in Chiles v. Salazar and ongoing state-level challenges.
Is conversion therapy banned in the United States?
There is no single federal ban on conversion therapy. Instead, restrictions exist at the state and local level. As of 2026, more than 20 states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws or administrative rules prohibiting licensed professionals from performing conversion therapy on minors, and several extend protections to adults. However, the Supreme Court's 2026 ruling in Chiles v. Salazar has introduced new uncertainty about how these bans will be enforced going forward.
What states have banned conversion therapy as of 2026?
States with active bans include California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Maryland, Nevada, Hawaii, New Mexico, Virginia, Minnesota, and several others, along with the District of Columbia. Wisconsin's administrative rule (MPSW 20.02(25)) also restricts such interventions for licensed MFTs, though that rule is now being challenged in federal court. Practitioners should verify current enforcement status in each state where they hold a license.
Can a licensed marriage and family therapist practice conversion therapy?
In states with active bans, licensed MFTs are prohibited from using interventions designed to change a client's sexual orientation or gender identity. Violations can result in disciplinary action, including license suspension or revocation. Even in states without explicit bans, the AAMFT Code of Ethics and prevailing clinical standards discourage such practices. MFTs should consult their state licensing board and stay current on any legal developments that may alter enforcement.
What did the Supreme Court rule on conversion therapy in Chiles v. Salazar (2026)?
In an 8 to 1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Colorado's conversion therapy ban as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. The ruling found that laws targeting specific therapeutic viewpoints violate free speech protections. This precedent is already influencing legal challenges in other states. For example, in May 2026, a federal lawsuit was filed challenging Wisconsin's nearly identical administrative rule on behalf of two licensed clinicians, including LMFT Terri Koschnick.
What is the AAMFT's official position on conversion therapy?
The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy has stated that conversion therapy is not supported by credible evidence and poses serious risks of harm to clients. The AAMFT aligns with the American Psychological Association and other major professional organizations in opposing efforts to change sexual orientation or gender identity through therapeutic intervention. The AAMFT Code of Ethics obligates MFTs to provide care grounded in research and to avoid practices likely to cause harm.
How do conversion therapy bans apply to telehealth MFT sessions across state lines?
Telehealth complicates compliance because MFTs must generally follow the laws of the state where the client is physically located during the session, not just the state where the therapist is licensed. If a client resides in a state with an active conversion therapy ban, the MFT must comply with that state's restrictions regardless of the therapist's home state rules. Practitioners offering telehealth should review licensing compacts and each jurisdiction's specific requirements before providing services.
Are faith-based licensed MFTs exempt from conversion therapy bans?
In most states, existing bans do not include a religious exemption for licensed professionals. The restrictions apply to all practitioners holding a state-issued license, including those who integrate faith into their clinical work. The May 2026 Wisconsin lawsuit, filed on behalf of LMFT Terri Koschnick and LPC Joy Buchman, directly challenges this framework, arguing that the state rule unconstitutionally restricts voluntary, faith-informed talk therapy. The outcome may reshape how religious exemptions are treated in future legislation.
The Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling in *Chiles v. Salazar* reshaped the legal map, but it did not rewrite the AAMFT Code of Ethics. Legal room and ethical obligation are two different standards, and for licensed MFTs, the latter does not shrink because a court narrows the former.
Three steps belong on your immediate to-do list: confirm your state's current ban status, because the post-*Chiles* landscape is still shifting; review your informed consent forms and session documentation to reflect any updated language; and complete affirming-care continuing education before your next renewal cycle. Check your state's MFT CEU requirements to confirm how many hours you need and whether affirming-care topics are mandatory. Courts will keep litigating. Licensing boards will keep enforcing. Through all of it, evidence-based practice and genuine client welfare remain the only north star that holds steady for every MFT, in every state.
