Colorado leaders said they are weighing next steps after the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the state’s ban on “conversion therapy” for children, as critics and supporters cheered or lambasted the ruling.

The court’s near-unanimous decision called the Colorado law, passed in 2019, an “egregious assault” on the First Amendment.

It remains to be seen what impact the court’s decision might have on current legislation being debated in the state legislature. House Bill 1322, sponsored by Democrats, would allow individuals who underwent conversion therapy to sue licensed providers for damages.

The bill creates a cause of action for claims of injury caused by a licensed conversion therapy provider, with no statute of limitations. The measure already received committee approval; its next stop is the House floor for a debate.

In a statement, Gov. Jared Polis said he is “evaluating” the ruling to determine its impact on the Colorado law, which defines “conversion therapy” as a practice or treatment by a licensed physician aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation or their gender identity, or to otherwise eliminate feelings of attraction toward members of the same sex.

“Colorado is for everyone, no matter who you are,” he said. “Conversion therapy doesn’t work, can seriously harm youth, and Coloradans should beware before turning over their hard-earned money to a scam. We are fighting for everyone’s right to be who you are in our Colorado for all.”

Attorney General Phil Weiser, who represented the state in the case, echoed the sentiment, adding his office will also review the court decision and its impact on Colorado law.

Alliance Defending Freedom, the organization that litigated the case on behalf of a counselor, called the ruling “a significant win for free speech.”

“Kids deserve real help affirming that their bodies are not a mistake and that they are wonderfully made,” said Jim Campbell, the group’s chief legal counsel. “States cannot silence voluntary conversations that help young people seeking to grow comfortable with their bodies.”

The lawsuit was filed by Kaley Chiles, a Christian counselor from Colorado Springs, who had argued that the law forces her to limit her speech about sexuality for fear of violating it. Chiles told the court the law has valid applications — she does not take issue with banning “long-abandoned, aversive” physical interventions — but she specifically objected to its application to her “talk therapy,” which does not involve physical interventions or medications.

In a statement released by Alliance Defending Freedom, Chiles called the decision a victory for counselors.

“When my young clients come to me for counsel, they often want to discuss issues of gender and sexuality. I look forward to being able to help them when they choose the goal of growing comfortable with their bodies,” Chiles said. “Counselors walking alongside these young people shouldn’t be limited to promoting state-approved goals like gender transition, which often leads to harmful drugs and surgeries. The Supreme Court’s ruling is a victory for counselors and, more importantly, kids and families everywhere.”

Meanwhile, One Colorado, the state’s largest LGBTQ advocacy organization, called the decision disappointing.

“While the Court has chosen to categorize this practice as protected speech, we know the truth: conversion therapy is an unsafe, unethical and fundamentally flawed practice that has caused profound historical harm to the LGBTQIA+ community,” said Cal Solverson, the organization’s development and communications manager. “Regardless of this ruling, the reality of the trauma inflicted on survivors remains unchanged. This decision only reinforces the urgent need for state-level protections.”

Writing for the 8-1 majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said the Colorado law regulates the content of Chiles’ speech — permitting her to “express acceptance and support for clients exploring their identity or undergoing gender transition” but “forbids her from saying anything that attempts to change” a client’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

“The First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth,” he wrote. “However well-intentioned, any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an ‘egregious’ assault on both of those commitments.”

In her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that states should be free to regulate health care, even if that means incidental restrictions on speech.

“To do anything else opens a dangerous can of worms. It threatens to impair States’ ability to regulate the provision of medical care in any respect. It extends the Constitution into uncharted territory in an utterly irrational fashion. And it ultimately risks grave harm to Americans’ health and well-being,” she wrote.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.