In a significant 8-1 ruling earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Colorado cannot use its licensing power to silence licensed counsellors who engage in voluntary, client-directed talk therapy with minors seeking to align their feelings and behaviours with biological reality.
The Court reversed a lower court decision and remanded the case in Chiles v. Salazar, finding that Colorado’s 2019 law banning “conversion therapy” for minors unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of viewpoint. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, with Justice Brown as the lone dissenter.
The Colorado law prohibits licensed mental health professionals from offering counseling aimed at changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. This includes efforts to decrease unwanted same-sex attractions, change behaviors, or help young people feel more comfortable with their biological sex. At the same time, the law explicitly permits counselors to provide acceptance, support, and assistance for gender transition or exploring LGBTQ identity.
Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counsellor in Colorado and practising Christian, challenged the law after it threatened her with fines and potential loss of her licence. Chiles offers talk therapy only and does not impose predetermined outcomes on clients. Instead, she works with minors and their families to pursue the clients’ own stated goals, which for some include reducing distress associated with same-sex attractions or gender confusion and living in harmony with their bodies as biologically created.
“Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety,” Gorsuch wrote.“Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same. But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth.”
Justice Elena Kagan, along with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, wrote a concurrence emphasising the clear viewpoint discrimination in the law: the state suppressed one side of the debate on sexuality and gender while aiding the other. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter, arguing that the Constitution should not prevent states from regulating what they view as harmful treatments, even if it’s delivered as speech, not a scalpel.
Chiles welcomed the decision, stating she looks forward to continuing to support young clients and their families who seek guidance consistent with biblical principles on sexuality and relationships. “My young clients frequently seek advice on gender and sexuality,” she said. “I look forward to supporting them when their goal is to become more comfortable with their bodies.”
The ruling does not automatically invalidate similar laws in more than 20 other states and numerous localities, but it strongly indicates that bans targeting talk therapy — rather than coercive or physical procedures — must withstand strict First Amendment scrutiny. Legal experts expect the decision to bolster challenges to those restrictions across the US.
The ruling is a victory for free speech, religious liberty, and the right of parents and minors to access compassionate, client-directed counselling without state-imposed ideological limits. The Alliance Defence for Freedom, representing Chile, welcomes the decision as it shields vulnerable young people from government-mandated affirmation-only practices. These practices have faced increasing criticism due to reports of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, medical regret, and the long-term, irreversible health effects linked to puberty blockers and surgeries.
This case highlights the ideological conflict, possibly even takeover, that has infiltrated medical and educational institutions regarding the best ways to support children experiencing distress related to sexuality and gender.
This Supreme Court decision confirms that professionals do not relinquish their constitutional rights when they enter the counselling room and that states cannot use their licensing authority to impose a single viewpoint on deeply contested issues. Regardless of how limited this victory may be according to the other side, this court ruling is a win for counsellors, children, and families.
*Written by Family First staff*
