The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to Colorado's 2019 law banning “conversion therapy” for minors, a controversial practice aimed at changing an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity. The case, Chiles v. Salazar, centers on licensed counselor Kaley Chiles, who argues that the law violates her First Amendment rights to free speech and religious exercise, according to Reuters.
Chiles, a practicing Christian based in Colorado Springs, contends that the ban unlawfully censors her communications with clients seeking faith-based counseling regarding their sexuality. Represented by the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, she asserts that the law infringes upon her ability to provide guidance aligned with her religious beliefs.
Colorado's law prohibits licensed mental health providers from engaging in conversion therapy with clients under 18, with violations punishable by disciplinary action before a state licensing board. According to AP News, the statute defines conversion therapy as efforts “to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”
Over the past decade, twenty states have enacted similar bans on conversion therapy following the Ninth Circuit Court’s rulings in Pickup v. Brown and Welch v. Brown. These cases upheld the constitutionality of California Senate Bill 1172, classifying talk therapy treatments as conduct rather than speech. Since conduct can be regulated, the court ruled, California's ban was lawful. However, the issue remains unsettled nationally, as federal appellate courts have issued conflicting rulings.
The Third, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have split on the issue, making the case ripe for Supreme Court review. The Eleventh Circuit, for example, ruled in Otto v. City of Boca Raton that local ordinances banning conversion therapy violated the First Amendment’s free speech protections. While a district court initially ruled against the therapists challenging the ban, the appellate court overturned the decision, holding that content-based speech restrictions must pass strict scrutiny. The court emphasized that the government cannot suppress viewpoints it finds unfavorable, writing, “Forbidding the government from choosing favored and disfavored messages is at the core of the First Amendment’s free-speech guarantee.”
Supporters of conversion therapy bans argue that such laws protect minors from a widely discredited practice that medical and mental health organizations deem harmful. The American Psychological Association (APA) recommends that therapists adopt an affirmative, supportive approach for clients seeking assistance regarding their sexual orientation rather than attempting to change it.
Lower courts upholding these bans, including the Tenth Circuit in Chiles v. Salazar, have ruled that they regulate professional conduct rather than speech. AP News reported that the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied Chiles' motion for a preliminary injunction, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed this decision, citing evidence that conversion therapy can cause harm to minors.
The Supreme Court’s decision to take up Chiles v. Salazar could have sweeping implications for similar laws across more than 20 states. Arguments are expected to take place during the Court’s next term, beginning in October, with a ruling anticipated by June 2026. The outcome, Reuters reported, may determine whether states can continue restricting conversion therapy or whether such bans infringe on constitutional rights, setting a precedent for free speech and professional conduct regulations nationwide.
