In a case with sweeping implications for mental health regulation and free speech, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in Chiles v. Salazar, a challenge to Colorado’s 2019 ban on conversion therapy for minors. The plaintiff, Kaley Chiles—a licensed Christian therapist based in Colorado Springs—argues that the law violates her First Amendment rights by censoring faith-informed conversations with youth clients seeking to align their identity with their biological sex.

The Plaintiff’s Position: Faith-Informed Counseling as Protected Speech

Chiles, who has practiced therapy for over a decade, offers what she calls “faith-informed” counseling to minors experiencing gender dysphoria or unwanted same-sex attraction. Her legal team, led by the conservative advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom, contends that the Colorado law amounts to “viewpoint censorship.”

“I want to be able to speak genuinely, openly, have full conversations with my clients,” Chiles told ABC News. “Without the state kind of peering into my office in these completely private conversations.”

Her attorneys argue that the law prohibits her from helping clients who say, “I am a biological male and I have been living and presenting as a female for a while now,” while allowing therapists to affirm a transgender identity. “These laws are historic outliers,” said Jim Campbell, chief legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom. “Colorado hasn’t identified any similar viewpoint-based bans on counseling.”

The Law: Colorado’s 2019 Ban and Its Enforcement

Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law prohibits licensed mental health professionals from attempting to change a minor’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.” Violators face fines up to $5,000 and potential loss of license.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser defended the law, stating: “So-called conversion therapy is an inhumane and abusive practice overwhelmingly shown to harm young people. We have a compelling interest in protecting children from this dangerous pseudoscience.”

State officials emphasized that the law does not apply to religious groups or faith-based ministries, and that it permits therapists to provide “acceptance, support, and understanding” as minors explore their identity.

Constitutional Stakes: Speech vs. Conduct

The justices grappled with whether the law regulates speech or professional conduct. Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether the law discriminates based on viewpoint, saying it “looks like blatant viewpoint discrimination” when therapists are allowed to affirm but not question a minor’s identity.

Justice Neil Gorsuch raised the possibility of a “mirror-image” law in a conservative state banning gender-affirming therapy, asking whether the First Amendment would block that too. DOJ attorney Hashim Mooppan, supporting Chiles, replied: “In fact, we think that’s a strong reason in support of our position.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked whether the case was the “functional equivalent” of United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care. The court’s decision could clarify whether talk therapy is protected speech or regulated treatment.

Local Impact: Colorado Springs at the Crossroads

The case has stirred deep divisions in Colorado Springs. Faith leaders and conservative groups have rallied behind Chiles, while LGBTQ+ advocates warn that a ruling in her favor could legitimize harmful practices.

“Making you feel bad about who you are, or pressuring you to be someone else, that’s not legitimate therapy,” said Attorney General Weiser.

Chiles’ supporters argue that families should have the freedom to seek counseling aligned with their values. Critics say the law is essential to protect youth from psychological harm.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule by spring 2026.