The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear arguments in a case challenging a Colorado state law that bans state-licensed mental health professionals from providing “conversion therapy” to minors.
Case background
The case, Chiles v. Salazar, stems from a challenge by a Christian therapist, Kaley Chiles. She’s a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs and says the law, passed in 2019, restricts her ability to communicate with her clients.
The Minor Conversion Therapy Law was challenged by Chiles in 2019 when she filed a lawsuit in federal district court, arguing the law violates her First Amendment rights. After losing in district court, she appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and then later brought the case to the Supreme Court. The law does not impact nonlicensed religious counselors in the state.
The Supreme Court agreed in March to hear the case in its 2025-26 term.
Chiles says the state law banning therapy that attempts to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity is unconstitutional. She argues that the law violates her First Amendment free speech and religious exercise rights.
The state has said its ban regulates treatment that professionals can provide, citing conversion therapy as “unsafe and ineffective.” The law applies to mental health professionals in the state, but does not apply to religious counselors.
This case is just one of several coming to the Supreme Court this term related to the issue of gender. Transgender rights and gender-related treatments have been a focus both federally and at the state level in recent years, often sparking legal battles and social debate between LGTBQ+ and religious groups.
What advocates say in the case
Patty Salazar, the executive director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, is representing the state in the case. She and other state leaders have maintained that the law is meant to protect minors from abusive treatments that could cause mental health issues.
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser urged the Supreme Court to “stick to its precedent” and allow states to continue making laws they see fit to “prohibit substandard care.” Weiser argued that some aspects of the “so-called conversion therapy” are used by professionals to “force patients to change their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
“Regardless of how this practice is formed, it does not work and causes long-lasting harms that include depression, self-hatred, loss of faith, and suicide,” Weiser said in a statement. “Because these conversion efforts do not meet the standard of care, laws like Colorado’s exist in 25 states and are endorsed by every major health care association in the country.”
Chiles, however, said she doesn’t try to convert patients but instead tries to help them with “stated desires and objectives” for being in counseling, which can sometimes include minors who want to “reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual behaviors” or to have “harmony with one’s physical body.”
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed a friend of the court brief to support Chiles in her case. Becket attorney Benjamin Fleshman said it will be an interesting case to watch, particularly in how the court responds to whether talk therapy should be considered under free speech.
Fleshman predicts that oral arguments will likely consist of the justices posing hypothetical questions and scenarios related to the state law, gender exploration and the science behind them both.
While Colorado is saying that conversion efforts through talk therapy is a harmful procedure for minors and is backed by many in the medical industry, Fleshman said there is “more and more science” coming out about how something called “cautious counseling” is more beneficial for minors than jumping to “drastic surgeries and chemical interventions.”
Becket has argued that Colorado’s law does not pass the strict scrutiny test and sides with Chiles in her belief that when she speaks with clients, it’s a protected First Amendment activity.
When a Catholic minor who is experiencing gender dysphoria wants to seek advice and care from someone that is “consistent with their faith, they now can’t under the state law,” Fleshman said.
“For Mrs. Chiles or other counselors around the country, offering this kind of cautious counseling is an expression of their faith. It’s a way that they minister to the clients that they try to serve, because they’re trying to help them align their lives with their clients’ faith,” he said.
There are many groups who support Colorado’s law, including LGBTQ+ groups that have long advocated against any sort of conversion therapy.
The Trevor Project outlined medical research that has been done on conversion therapy and the connection to suicide attempts. The group also says that there’s been consistent, bipartisan support for bans to conversion therapy for over a decade, including among Republican and religious groups.
With the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the Trevor Project filed a friend of the court brief discussing the “serious mental health harms” that LGBTQ+ youth face with conversion therapy and testimonials from youth who describe their experiences.