Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Clause.
Chiles v. Salazar, Docket No. 24-539, is a pending United States Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of Colorado's Minor Conversion Therapy Law (MCTL), which bans conversion therapy for minors by licensed mental health professionals. The ban was challenged on violating the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, though the state had constrained the ban to licensed professionals and only as with respect to their professional duties. The ban was upheld in lower courts.
Colorado's Minor Conversion Therapy Law (MCTL), passed in 2019, prohibits licensed mental health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy with clients under 18 with an exemption for therapists "engaged in the practice of religious ministry". Conversion therapy refers to practices aiming to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity. Over 20 states have similar laws which are supported by major medical organizations.[1][2] The Supreme Court has turned down earlier cases challenging state bans on conversion therapy.[1]
The plaintiff, Kaley Chiles, is a licensed professional counselor in Colorado. In her petition to the Court, she stated that as "a practicing Christian, Chiles believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God's design, including their biological sex." Her lawsuit says she wants to help patients with the goal of "seeking to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors or grow in the experience of harmony with one's physical body". She contends that the law violates the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. However, the law already makes exceptions for therapists "engaged in the practice of religious ministry."[1][2]
Chiles filed a pre-enforcement challenge against the MCTL, asserting violations of the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. She sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the law's enforcement. The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied her motion, finding that, while she had standing, she failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. The Court concluded that the MCTL regulates health-care professional conduct rather than therapists’ speech.[3][4]
Chiles appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. A 3-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling, agreeing that Colorado was entitled to regulate professional conduct and citing evidence of the harms conversion therapy can cause minors. Judge Harris Hartz dissented, arguing "courts must be particularly wary that in a contentious and evolving field, the government and its supporters would like to bypass the marketplace of ideas and declare victory for their preferred ideas by fiat".[1][3]
Supreme Court
Following the Tenth Circuit's decision, Chiles petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari, arguing that the MCTL violates her First Amendment rights by censoring certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed. She contended that governments do not have greater authority to regulate speech simply because the speaker is licensed or providing specialized advice.[5]
On March 10, 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case, signaling intent to address the constitutional questions surrounding the regulation of professional speech and the balance between state regulatory power and free speech rights within professional contexts.[6]
According to The Guardian, some of the experts cited in the ADF's petition to the Supreme Court "profoundly" misinterpreted their research on the possible psychological damage of conversion therapy.[7]
Oral arguments were held on October 7, 2025. Journalists covering the court believed from the questions asked that the conservative majority would likely find the ban unconstitutional, having given more weight to the First Amendment issues than the state's concern on the practice.[8][9]
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
