Washington D.C. — The Supreme Court of the United States has decided to hear a significant case surrounding Colorado’s law that restricts conversations between mental health counselors and their minor clients about sexual orientation change efforts, commonly referred to as “conversion therapy.” The decision marks a pivotal moment for judicial review of free speech rights under the First Amendment, particularly as it pertains to the professional interactions between counselors and their clients.
At the heart of the controversy is Kaley Chiles, a Christian and licensed professional counselor from Colorado whose practice includes helping clients who voluntarily seek guidance regarding their sexual orientation consistent with Christian teachings. Chiles’ ability to conduct these counseling sessions was curtailed when Colorado passed the Minor Conversion Therapy Law in 2019, which bans therapy aimed at changing a minor’s sexual orientation.
Challenging the state law, Chiles argues that it infringes on her First Amendment right to free speech by preventing her from speaking openly with her clients about topics concerning sexual orientation changes. Represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), Chiles’ lawsuit was initially unsuccessful. A three-judge panel on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law in a 2-1 decision in September 2024. This led to Chiles’ subsequent appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to review the case.
The central legal question presented to the Supreme Court is whether the Colorado law constitutes a regulation of conduct, which would typically be permissible, or an infringement on free speech based on the content and viewpoint expressed during counseling sessions.
Advocates for the law argue it protects minors from potentially harmful practices. Conversely, opponents, such as Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel at First Liberty Institute, argue that such laws impose a direct conflict on counselors of faith. Sasser asserts that the laws effectively enact a loyalty test, requiring Christian counselors to adopt a government-sanctioned viewpoint or face potential expulsion from the profession.
Adding a voice to the defense, Kristen Waggoner, President, CEO, and General Counsel of ADF, stated that the government should not intervene in private conversations between therapists and their clients, nor should it dictate a counselor’s professional approach based on ideological alignment.
This case marks the first time the nation’s highest court will assess the validity of laws like that of Colorado’s. This judicial examination comes after the Supreme Court previously declined to review a similar case from Washington state in 2023, a decision from which Justices Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito dissented. Justice Thomas underlined the potential ramifications of the issue for the First Amendment’s core principles, predicting that the question would inevitably return for the Court’s review.
According to data from the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBT non-profit organization, 23 states plus Washington D.C. have laws similar to Colorado’s in place. The discretionary split among these states highlights a broader conflict in the U.S. legal landscape about the extent to which states can regulate professional conduct that intersects with free speech rights.
Legal experts suggest that the Supreme Court’s decision to take up this case indicates a shift or a need for clarification in the jurisprudence surrounding free speech and professional conduct. The case, formally titled “Chiles v. Salazar,” promises to be a closely watched battle over the boundaries of free speech within professional settings, with national implications regardless of the outcome.
This article was generated by Open AI. The factual accuracy of individuals, events, or locations may be flawed. For corrections or to request article removals, contact contact@publiclawlibrary.org.