In partnership with
In a case with sweeping national implications, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared ready to side with a Christian therapist’s free speech challenge to Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for LGBTQ youth. The decision could ripple through more than 20 states with similar laws and reshape the balance between state health care regulations and First Amendment rights.
The Case: Chiles v. Salazar
Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor from Colorado Springs, argues that the state’s 2019 conversion therapy ban violates her First Amendment free speech rights. Chiles, who provides talk therapy rooted in Christian beliefs, says the law restricts her ability to counsel clients questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Colorado’s law forbids licensed mental health professionals from engaging in therapy that seeks to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity but does not restrict religious or family discussions on the topic.
Chiles, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, contends the law constitutes viewpoint discrimination, allowing speech that affirms LGBTQ identities while prohibiting speech that encourages traditional gender identities.
“This is vital speech that helps young people better understand themselves,” her legal team argued. “Colorado wants to control what those kids believe about themselves and who they can become.”
Conservative Justices Question State’s Power
During oral arguments, several conservative justices — including Samuel Alito, John Roberts, and Amy Coney Barrett — expressed concern that Colorado’s law may unfairly restrict protected speech.
Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that even when speech occurs within professional conduct, it is still protected by the First Amendment.
Justice Alito described the state’s approach as “blatant viewpoint discrimination,” noting that it allows counselors to affirm a client’s gender identity but bans conversations that question it.
This skepticism echoes the Court’s 2018 ruling that struck down a California law requiring anti-abortion clinics to promote abortion services, a significant free speech victory for religious organizations.
The Core Debate: Speech or Conduct?
At the heart of the case is whether conversion therapy is considered speech or regulated medical conduct. Colorado argues it is regulating professional practices to protect youth from harmful and discredited therapy methods, citing medical consensus that conversion therapy is ineffective and psychologically damaging.
Chiles insists her therapy sessions are talk-based and therefore should be protected as free speech, not subject to medical regulation.
If the Supreme Court agrees with her position, the law could be subjected to strict scrutiny, requiring the state to prove the ban serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal — a difficult legal standard to meet.
Broader Implications for LGBTQ Rights and State Laws
A ruling against Colorado could have nationwide effects, including:
Invalidating conversion therapy bans in more than 20 states
Limiting state authority to regulate mental health practices
Opening the door for “mirror-image” laws in conservative states, banning affirming therapy that supports LGBTQ identities
Justice Neil Gorsuch raised this concern, asking whether states could “pick a side” in regulating therapy. Attorneys for Chiles argued that both types of laws — whether banning affirming or conversion-based counseling — would violate the First Amendment.
Divided Court, Uncertain Outcome
While the Court’s 6-3 conservative majority often favors free speech claims, some justices questioned the consistency of striking down Colorado’s law while upholding state bans on gender-affirming medical care.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the liberal justices, asked why the Court would defer to states in regulating medical treatments but not in regulating speech-based therapy.
“It just seems odd that we might have a different result here,” Jackson observed.
LGBTQ Rights at a Crossroads
The Supreme Court has previously issued landmark rulings advancing LGBTQ rights, including legalizing same-sex marriage in 2015 and barring workplace discrimination in 2020. However, it has also supported religious freedom and free speech claims when they conflict with anti-discrimination laws — such as the 2023 decision allowing a web designer to refuse services for same-sex weddings.
This latest case underscores the ongoing tension between protecting LGBTQ youth and safeguarding religious and expressive freedoms.
What’s Next?
The Court is expected to issue a decision by June 2026. Possible outcomes include:
Striking down Colorado’s law entirely
Sending the case back to lower courts for further review under strict scrutiny
Issuing a narrower ruling defining the limits of professional speech regulation
Key Takeaways
The Supreme Court seems ready to back a free speech challenge to Colorado’s conversion therapy ban.
Justices questioned whether the law unfairly restricts talk-based counseling.
A ruling against Colorado could overturn similar bans in 20+ states.
Decision may redefine how states regulate speech in professional therapy.
Stop being the bottleneck
Every leader hits the same wall: too many priorities, not enough bandwidth. Wing clears that wall with a full-time virtual assistant who runs the drag layer so you lead, not chase.
Offload scheduling, inbox, follow-ups, vendor wrangles
Keep your stack, your process, your control
Scale scope as you scale revenue
This isn’t gig work. It’s dedicated support that shows up every day and allows founders to delegate without losing control.