Free speech on conversion therapy
Chiles v. Salazar
In brief
Colorado must face a more demanding First Amendment review before it can enforce this law against Chiles's talk therapy.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 8-1 · March 31, 2026 · Opinion by Justice Gorsuch
- What it’s about
- The Court ruled 8–1 for licensed counselor Kaley Chiles, holding that Colorado’s ban on certain counseling aimed at changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity violates the First Amendment as applied to her talk therapy.
- Who it affects
- The decision means Colorado's restriction cannot stand without a tougher constitutional justification. It directly affects Chiles and may affect counselors whose talk therapy is covered by the law.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court found that the law favors one viewpoint in counseling discussions and sent the case back to the lower courts for review under the most demanding constitutional standard.
The case addresses when states may regulate what licensed professionals say during counseling while respecting free-speech protections.
Question presented
Does a Colorado law banning “conversion therapy”—i.e., attempts to “convert” someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity—violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?
What the Court decided
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Majority · 7joined the Court's opinion
- Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Kaganwrote separately
- Dissenting · 1disagreed with the result
- Jacksonwrote the dissent
From the opinions
“Colorado's law, as applied to Ms. Chiles's talk therapy, "regulates speech based on viewpoint."”
What's next
The case returns to the lower courts, which must reconsider Chiles's challenge using the more demanding First Amendment review required by the Court. Colorado agencies and affected parties will await that further ruling.
Docket activity
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
Show 7 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
Opinion added: Opinion of the Court - NG
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Chiles
Argued. For petitioner: James A. Campbell, Lansdowne, Va.; and Hashim M. Mooppan, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Shannon W. Stevenson, Solicitor General, Denver, Colo.
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court rule in Chiles v. Salazar?
- The Court said Colorado's law regulates speech based on viewpoint when applied to Chiles's talk therapy. It reversed the Tenth Circuit and sent the case back.
- Who is affected by Chiles v. Salazar?
- Chiles is directly affected, along with Colorado counselors whose talk therapy falls under the conversion-therapy ban. The ruling does not end the case.
- What happens next in Chiles v. Salazar?
- Lower courts must reconsider the challenge under a more demanding First Amendment review. Colorado's agencies must follow the result of that further court action.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.