Chiles v. Salazar

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 10 Mar 2025

Kaley Chiles is a licensed counselor who helps people by talking with them. A practicing Christian, Chiles believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God's design, including their biological sex. Many of her clients seek her counsel precisely because they believe that their faith and their relationship with God establishes the foundation upon which to understand their identity and desires. But Colorado bans these consensual conversations based on the viewpoints they express. Its content- and viewpoint-based Counseling Restriction prohibits counseling conversations with minors that might encourage them to change their "sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions," while allowing conversations that provide "[a]cceptance, support, and understanding for ... identity exploration and development, including ... [a]ssistance to a person undergoing gender transition." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12- 245-202(3.5). The Tenth Circuit upheld this ban as a regulation of Chiles's conduct, not speech. In doing so, the court deepened a circuit split between the Eleventh and Third Circuits, which do not treat counseling conversations as conduct, and the Ninth Circuit, which does. The question presented is: Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Clause

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

Justice Gorsuch wrote that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy, as applied to Ms. Chiles’s talk therapy with minors, regulates speech based on viewpoint. The Court said Chiles only provides talk therapy and that the law lets counselors offer acceptance and support but forbids speech aimed at changing a client’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Because the law targets the content of what she may say, not just professional conduct, it triggers demanding First Amendment review, not rational-basis review. The Court rejected Colorado’s arguments that the law was merely a regulation of professional conduct, informed consent, or malpractice, and said no recognized exception to ordinary First Amendment rules applied. The judgment of the Tenth Circuit was reversed and the case remanded.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Jackson dissented. She argued that Colorado was acting within its police power to regulate medical treatment and protect minors, and that the First Amendment has far less force when the State regulates licensed healthcare professionals providing treatment-related speech. In her view, Colorado’s law enforced a standard of care for a harmful therapy modality, and the majority wrongly treated that regulation as presumptively unconstitutional. She said the Court misread its precedents and that its approach was unprincipled and unworkable.