Chiles v. Salazar

Case Description

Faith-based counselors nationwide help youth experiencing gender dysphoria by talking with children to address the underlying causes of their discomfort, alleviating their distress, and, if possible, helping them to accept their bodies without resorting to irreversible life-altering medical intervention. This approach is supported by scientific evidence and by recently enacted laws in dozens of states.

Kaley Chiles is licensed in Colorado as a professional counselor (LPC). She is a devout Christian whose view of human nature is informed by her Christian beliefs. She “believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex.”

Colorado, however, bans counselors from using this cautious approach. In 2019, the Colorado legislature passed a counseling restriction that outlines what counselors may and may not say to their minor clients. Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law (MCTL) prohibits licensed mental health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy, refers to practices aiming to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, with clients under 18. Specifically, the law bars Kaley and other counselors in Colorado from saying anything to clients under 18 that would encourage them to “change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction” toward members of the same sex.

Conversely, the law allows counselors to provide “[a]cceptance, support, and understanding” for clients who wish to “explore” their sexual orientation or gender identity, It also allows counselors to “assist” anyone who is “undergoing gender transition.” Rather than allowing children to work through the root causes of their discomfort, state law requires counselors to affirm children in their belief that they were born in the wrong body and only allows counseling that assists a child in undergoing a gender transition. In other words, Colorado allows counselors to discuss only the government’s view of sexual orientation and gender identity. As a result, therapists who offer compassionate talk therapy face the loss of their license and fines of up to $5,000.

Kaley filed a pre-enforcement challenge against the MCTL, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the MCTL’s enforcement, asserting violations of the Free Speech Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied her motion, finding she failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. The court concluded that the MCTL regulates professional conduct that incidentally involves speech.

Kaley appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which also ruled against her, claiming that conversations in a counseling session constitute conduct, rather than speech. Judge Harris Hartz dissented, arguing that “courts must be particularly wary that in a contentious and evolving field, the government and its supporters would like to bypass the marketplace of ideas and declare victory for their preferred ideas by fiat.” In upholding the counseling ban, the Tenth Circuit deepened a split among appellate courts on the issue. The Eleventh and Third Circuits have concluded that counseling conversations are speech, while the Ninth and Tenth Circuits treat those conversations as conduct.

Following the Tenth Circuit’s decision, Kaley petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari, arguing that the MCTL violates her First Amendment rights by censoring certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed. She contended that governments do not have greater authority to regulate speech simply because the speaker is licensed or providing specialized advice. In March 2025, the Court agreed to hear the case.

On June 13, 2025, the Center filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court on behalf of Kaley. The brief points out the Tenth Circuit’s critical error and the stakes. Talk therapy is pure speech, not conduct. The Colorado ban violates the First Amendment’s free speech protection for all Americans—including professionals—with its viewpoint discrimination. If allowed to stand, professionals nationwide will find themselves in danger of losing their licenses to practice when states that disfavor certain ideas start regulating them through professional standards. The brief points out that CLS has been fighting this battle for years against the ABA’s Model Rule 8.4(g) that exposes attorneys to discipline if they run afoul of the ABA’s preferred speech codes.

Chiles v. Salazar will be heard during the Court’s 2025-26 Term, with a decision expected by the end of June 2026.