Chiles v. Salazar

Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor in Colorado, is challenging a state law that prohibits therapists from providing conversion therapy to minors. She argues that the law violates her First Amendment rights by censoring conversations with clients who seek religiously informed care regarding their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The ruling will determine if states can regulate the specific topics discussed in private talk therapy sessions. If the Court sides with the counselor, it could limit the power of states to ban practices they consider harmful to children, such as attempts to change a minor's sexual orientation.

This case sits at the intersection of professional regulations and the First Amendment's protection of free speech. It tests whether a therapist's advice is considered professional conduct that the state can control or protected speech that the government cannot censor.

During oral arguments, the discussion focused on whether the Colorado law targets the viewpoints of counselors or simply regulates the medical conduct of licensed professionals. Advocates for the counselor argued the law censors specific conversations, while the state defended its interest in protecting minors from harmful practices.

The Supreme Court must decide if Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors is an unconstitutional restriction on a counselor's freedom of speech.

The Court has finished hearing oral arguments and will now deliberate in private. A written opinion is expected to be released before the current term ends in late June 2026.

The case centers on whether Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors violates the First Amendment. A counselor argues the law unconstitutionally restricts her ability to provide religiously informed talk therapy.

A ruling for the counselor could allow therapists to offer conversion therapy despite state bans. A ruling for the state would uphold protections intended to prevent harm to LGBTQ+ youth.

The Court is examining the Free Speech Clause to see if the law censors speech based on the counselor's viewpoint. It must decide if the law regulates conduct or speech.

The justices will vote on the outcome and assign a member of the majority to write the opinion. This process usually takes several months to complete.

This case follows a trend of legal challenges regarding how much control the government has over professional speech. It highlights ongoing tensions between state regulations and individual religious or speech rights.