Empirically, a Black-White “double paradox” exists whereby 1) despite living in a society plagued by anti-Black racism, Black individuals in the United States are no more likely to experience depression than their White counterparts and 2) Black individuals are more likely to report severe psychological distress, a construct that is correlated with depression. Further, intersectional theory suggests that Black lesbian, gay, and bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) young adults may experience elevated risk for mental health issues due to overlapping systems of oppression (i.e., racism, heterosexism). Lastly, Black LGBTQ+ persons’ utilization of professional mental health services (PMHS; e.g. therapy, medication) may be impacted by these same forces, but quantitative research has yet to explore utilization disparities at this intersection. Therefore, Studies 1 & 2 of this investigation documented disparities in major depressive episodes (MDE) and severe psychological distress (SPD), as well as differences in the utilization of outpatient PMHS. Study 3 involved semi-structured interviews with Black LGBTQ+ young adults that explored participants’ (i) experiences of intersectional minority stress; (ii) perceptions of the relationship between these experiences and their mental health; and (iii) strategies for managing their mental health. In Study 1 covariate-adjusted models, compared to White heterosexual individuals, Black LGB males and females evidenced similar or reduced odds of an MDE; there were no statistical differences between these groups for SPD. Compared to their White LGB peers, Black LGB males and females were less likely to report an MDE or SPD. However, compared to their Black heterosexual counterparts, Black LGB males and females had higher odds of an MDE and SPD. Bisexual identity (as opposed to lesbian/gay identity), age, and education were associated with MDE or SPD among the subsample of Black LGB adults. In Study 2 unadjusted models, compared to White heterosexual females, Black LGB females were less likely to use PMHS. This relationship was not significant in models adjusted for covariates. In models that accounted for mental health need, Black LGB females were less likely to use PMHS than White heterosexual females in unadjusted and adjusted models. The association for Black LGB males, relative to White heterosexual males, was not significant in unadjusted or adjusted models, regardless of mental health need. Still, predicted probabilities illustrated disparities among Black LGB adults, with and without accounting for mental health need, in PMHS utilization relative to White LGB adults and Black heterosexual adults. Age, income, and education were also associated with PMHS utilization among Black LGB individuals. Participants in Study 3 generally did not describe their identities or attribute their bias experiences in intersectional terms. Rather, most described themselves as “Black first” and discussed instances of anti-Black or, separately, anti-queer discrimination. Almost all shared periods of poor mental health and discussed myriad strategies for managing their mental health, including seeking PMHS, as well as social supports and self-care strategies. Together, these studies illustrate differences in risk for depression and psychological distress, disparities in utilization of PMHS, and mental health experiences of Black [LGB]TQ+ young people. Based on all three studies, it appears that the experience of being a sexual minority in Black contexts may have different, and potentially more deleterious, mental health consequences than being Black in queer contexts. In aggregate, this investigation’s findings have implications for health policy and mental health practice related to bias/discrimination, barriers to care, and PMHS quality. Directions for future research are also discussed.