The Michigan conversion therapy ban prohibits licensed mental health professionals from performing conversion therapy on anyone under 18. Governor Whitmer signed House Bills 4616 and 4617 in July 2023, and the ban took effect in early 2024. A March 2026 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Chiles v. Salazar has since raised First Amendment questions about how far similar state bans can reach, but Michigan’s law remains on the books and the state still accepts complaints.
What the Ban Prohibits
Michigan defines conversion therapy as any practice or treatment by a licensed mental health professional that tries to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.1Michigan Legislature. Michigan Code 330.1901a – Conversion Therapy With Minor by Mental Health Professional; Prohibition2Michigan Legislature. House Bill 4616 of 20233Michigan Legislature. House Bill 4617 of 2023 The definition is broad on purpose. It reaches any technique aimed at forcing a change in who a young person is attracted to or how they experience their gender, whether the practitioner labels the work therapy, counseling, or treatment.
The line the statute draws is about intent. A therapist who helps a teenager explore questions about identity, work through a gender transition, or process feelings about orientation is doing protected, lawful work. Counseling focused on acceptance, understanding, and coping remains fully legal, as do gender-affirming clinical services. A therapist can also use orientation-neutral approaches to address unsafe or unlawful behavior in a minor.1Michigan Legislature. Michigan Code 330.1901a – Conversion Therapy With Minor by Mental Health Professional; Prohibition The prohibition kicks in when the goal is to steer the minor toward a predetermined outcome on orientation or identity.
Who the Ban Covers
The law applies only to individuals holding a professional license under the Michigan Public Health Code: physicians, psychologists, nurses, licensed master’s social workers, licensed professional counselors, and licensed marriage and family therapists.1Michigan Legislature. Michigan Code 330.1901a – Conversion Therapy With Minor by Mental Health Professional; Prohibition If treating patients in Michigan requires a state license, the practitioner is bound by this law.
Clergy and Unlicensed Counselors
Pastors, religious advisors, and unlicensed counselors fall outside the ban. Because they don’t hold mental health licenses and don’t practice medicine, the statute doesn’t reach them.4United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Catholic Charities v. Whitmer Opinion A licensed professional counselor who also serves in a pastoral role is still bound when acting in their licensed capacity. A church leader offering spiritual guidance without a clinical license is not.
Adults
The ban protects minors only. An adult who voluntarily seeks conversion therapy from a licensed professional is not covered. The legislature drew the line at age 18.
Penalties
A licensed professional who performs conversion therapy on a minor faces disciplinary action through the Michigan Public Health Code. The statute triggers the enforcement mechanisms in MCL 333.16221(a) and MCL 333.16226.1Michigan Legislature. Michigan Code 330.1901a – Conversion Therapy With Minor by Mental Health Professional; Prohibition A disciplinary subcommittee can impose:
- Probation, allowing supervised practice under conditions
- Suspension of the license
- Revocation or permanent revocation
- Fines up to $250,000 per violation
- Restitution to the affected patient
The $250,000 cap applies to violations of section 16221(a), which is the subsection covering conversion therapy. If a violation results in a patient’s death, the minimum fine is $25,000.5Michigan Legislature. Michigan Compiled Laws 333.16226 – Sanctions A subcommittee can impose more than one sanction for the same violation, so a practitioner might face both a fine and suspension.
How to File a Complaint
Complaints go through Michigan’s Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA). The Bureau of Professional Licensing investigates health professionals.6State of Michigan. File a Complaint With BPL Filing is done through the Michigan Professional Licensing User System (MiPLUS), an online portal. First-time users create an account. There is no fee.
LARA reviews the complaint, investigates whether the practitioner violated the Public Health Code, and refers substantiated cases to a disciplinary subcommittee, which decides on sanctions.
How Chiles v. Salazar Affects Enforcement
On March 31, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Chiles v. Salazar that Colorado’s conversion therapy ban, as applied to a therapist’s talk therapy practice, regulated speech based on viewpoint, and that the lower courts had not applied rigorous enough First Amendment scrutiny.7Supreme Court of the United States. Chiles v. Salazar, No. 24-539 (2026) The Court reversed the Tenth Circuit and sent the case back for further review.
The ruling was narrow on its face. The Court acknowledged that conversion therapy bans have “some constitutionally sound applications,” and the petitioner herself did not challenge bans on physical aversive techniques. But when a ban prevents a therapist from expressing a particular viewpoint during talk therapy, the Court found, it becomes viewpoint-based regulation of speech, the most constitutionally suspect kind. The Court also distinguished conversion therapy bans from malpractice claims: malpractice requires proof of injury caused by breach of duty, which provides “breathing room for protected speech,” while regulatory bans penalize a viewpoint without requiring harm or allowing client consent.7Supreme Court of the United States. Chiles v. Salazar, No. 24-539 (2026)
Michigan’s ban has already faced its own First Amendment challenge in Catholic Charities v. Whitmer before the Sixth Circuit.4United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Catholic Charities v. Whitmer Opinion Because Michigan’s statute uses language and a regulatory structure similar to Colorado’s, Chiles is likely to shape how future challenges are evaluated.
The practical picture right now: the law remains in force, and LARA can still investigate complaints. Enforcement against a therapist who provided only talk-based counseling could face a First Amendment challenge built on the Chiles framework. Bans on physical aversive techniques, such as electric shocks or nausea-inducing drugs, appear to stand on firmer constitutional ground, since the Supreme Court signaled those restrictions were not at issue.
Civil Malpractice Liability
The regulatory ban is not the only exposure. The Supreme Court in Chiles specifically noted that traditional malpractice actions operate differently from regulatory bans, because they require proof of injury and breach of duty.7Supreme Court of the United States. Chiles v. Salazar, No. 24-539 (2026) A therapist whose conversion therapy causes documented psychological harm to a minor could face a malpractice suit even if the regulatory ban is limited on First Amendment grounds.
Every major medical organization in the United States, including the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, has rejected conversion therapy as a legitimate treatment. That professional consensus matters in malpractice cases, because the standard of care is measured against what the medical community broadly accepts as appropriate. For families concerned about a therapist’s practices, the regulatory complaint process and civil malpractice claims both remain available while the courts continue working through the constitutional questions.