Chiles v. Salazar Revisions: 3/31/26
Headline: Ruling blocks Colorado from enforcing its ban on talk-based 'conversion therapy' against a licensed counselor, finding the law censors viewpoint and requires stricter constitutional review before limiting therapists' speech with minors.
Holding: The Court held that Colorado's ban on conversion therapy, as applied to a licensed counselor's talk therapy with minors, regulates speech based on viewpoint and therefore must face strict First Amendment scrutiny.
- Blocks Colorado from enforcing its ban against this counselor absent strict First Amendment justification.
- Requires courts to apply heightened review when bans target therapists' speech with minors.
- Prompts more lawsuits about where talk-based treatment becomes protected speech.
Summary
Background
Kaley Chiles is a licensed mental health counselor in Colorado who provides only talk therapy to clients, including minors. Colorado passed a law banning 'conversion therapy' for minors, defining it to include any practice that attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, while expressly allowing counseling that affirms identity or assists gender transition. Ms. Chiles sued and sought a preliminary injunction, arguing the law bars the way she talks with clients who ask for help changing attractions, behaviors, or gender expressions.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court took a narrow question: whether the Colorado law, as applied to Ms. Chiles's talk therapy, unlawfully restricts speech. The majority held that the law regulates the content of her speech and discriminates by viewpoint—allowing affirming speech but banning speech aimed at change—and therefore requires heightened First Amendment scrutiny. The Court reversed the Tenth Circuit, which had treated the statute as regulating professional conduct and applied only minimal review.
Real world impact
Because the Court treated Ms. Chiles's therapy as speech, Colorado cannot enforce its ban against her without meeting strict constitutional standards. The ruling is not a final decision about every application of the Colorado statute; instead it sends the case back for courts to apply heightened review and determine whether the State can justify the restriction. Counselors, regulators, and patients should expect more litigation over where talk-based treatment crosses into protected speech.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Kagan concurred, noting a different legal question would arise if a law were content based but viewpoint neutral. Justice Jackson dissented, arguing States may regulate medical professionals and treatments to protect minors and that the law regulates conduct that only incidentally involves speech.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?