On March 11, 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Chiles v. Salazar this fall, The case challenges a Colorado law infringing on the free speech rights of a licensed Christian counselor who provided “conversion therapy” for minors confused about their gender identities.
Given Chiles’ potential impact on free speech and, ultimately, on religious freedom, this column reviews its history. It then considers its possible impact, not just on counselors but also on minors and their families who are banned from engaging in “conversion therapy” from a Christian perspective.
Chiles v. Salazar
Kaley Chiles is a practicing Christian and licensed counselor who believes people are best off when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex. Many of Chiles’ clients seek her help because they view their faiths and relationships with God as the basis for understanding their identities. While Chiles “never promises that she can solve these issues, she believes clients can accept the bodies that God has given them and find peace.”
Chiles questioned Colorado’s 2019 Minor Conversion Therapy Law, one of twenty-three similar statutes nationally banning mental health professionals from what it describes as attempting to change minors’ self-proclaimed sexual orientations or gender identities, regardless their birth sexes, during counseling. Yet, the law permits, tacitly encouraging, conversations providing “[a]cceptance, support, and understanding for…identity exploration and development, including…to a person undergoing gender transition.”
Violations of the law can subject counselors to penalties, including $5,000 fines and the loss of their licenses.
When Chiles challenged the law in December 2022, a federal trial court rejected her motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent its enforcement as infringing on her First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion and speech because she failed to demonstrate the likelihood of success on the merits of her claim.
On appeal, a sharply divided Tenth Circuit, in its September 2024 two-to-one order, affirmed in favor of Colorado. The majority agreed that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because state officials have the authority to regulate the professional conduct of mental health providers involving minors, as doing so only incidentally involves speech. Also, the panel did not think the law lacked neutrality toward religion as it focused on what it described as preventing the vaguely defined harmful impact of such conversion therapy, ignoring evidence to the contrary, rather than how it restricted religious freedom.
The dissent raised two distinct but intertwined issues.
First, the judge questioned how the court could interpret licensed counselors’ comments in therapy sessions as conduct rather than speech.
Second, the judge raised a topic the panel did not address, asking “whether a court should treat as ‘science’ the pronouncements of prestigious persons or organizations [such as the American Psychological Association] that are not supported by sound evidence” amid differing perspectives on whether conversion therapy is beneficial.
Reflection and analysis
As delineated by the Supreme Court, Chiles addresses “[w]hether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Claus.” Chiles will be represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a notable law firm that “advances every person’s God-given right to live and speak the truth.”
Having refused to hear an appeal in a Ninth Circuit case from Washington sixteen months ago over strong dissents by Justices Thomas and Alito, the Supreme Court will now resolve the split between federal circuits over whether banning “conversion therapy,” often identified as “talk therapy,” involves conduct or speech; Justice Kavanaugh also dissented but did not author an opinion.
Conversely, the Third Circuit, although upholding New Jersey’s ban on “sexual orientation change therapy” for minors, treated it as speech, not conduct. The Eleventh Circuit subsequently struck down a similar ban in Florida, finding that therapists’ free speech rights outweighed the state’s concern to limit what it considered potentially harmful conduct associated with such counseling.
Chiles is the third recent controversy in which Colorado faces Supreme Court scrutiny over attempting to force Christians to communicate messages inconsistent with their beliefs.
In 2018’s Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Justices emphasized that officials could not compel a baker to prepare a cake for a same sex couple because doing so violated his free speech rights.
Similarly, in 2023’s 303 Creative v. Ellenis, the Court ruled that the Civil Rights Commission could not require a Christian wedding website designer to engage in compelled speech by offering her services to a same-sex couple because doing so would have violated her religious beliefs. Citing 303 Creative Chiles’ petition to the Supreme Court acknowledged that this is not Colorado’s first attempt “to regulate speech ‘in ways that align with its views but defy [an individual’s] conscience about a matter of major significance.’”
While the Supreme Court will focus on free speech in Chiles, its decision will undeniably impact the free exercise of religion, apparently a matter of little concern to Colorado officials.
For example, since June 2024, federal trial courts twice rebuffed efforts of educational officials to deny faith-based schools opportunities to participate in programs of general availability due to their Christian beliefs on sexuality. In so doing, Colorado violated the Supreme Court’s prohibition against denying aid to religious institutions and believers solely because of their faiths, an approach the Justices rejected as “odious to our Constitution.” Consequently, a key issue in Chiles is whether Colorado, relying on questionable science in supporting, if not encouraging, “transitioning” for minors, is infringing on religious freedom by preventing the psychologist from verbally offering advice to clients who freely seek her counsel because she does so from her Christian worldview.
At Chiles’ heart is whether counseling sessions constitute speech, as the counselor contends, or action, as state officials argue. The Supreme Court must clarify this distinction to determine whether officials in Colorado, and jurisdictions with similar laws, can continue to trammel the First Amendment speech rights of counselors by attempting to limit them to communicate only state-approved points of view.
Legislatures certainly have the authority to regulate counselors’ professional activities. Yet, as applied to minors experiencing confusion about their identities, it is unclear how legislators can, as the dissent at the Tenth Circuit questioned, treat speech as conduct, especially given Colorado’s poor track record before the Supreme Court. Further, one must ask which is more harmful: allowing confused minors to seek voluntary assistance that may help them, or limit the judgment of professional counselors in dictating that they can only support, rather than question, children who may opt for irreversible medicinal treatments and surgeries. It seems caution is in order in light of testimony from growing numbers of individuals who regret having “transitioned”.
Expectations are that the Justice Department under President Donald Trump will support Chiles. The administration’s backing, combined with precedent (such as 303 Creative and Masterpiece Cakeshop striking down compelled speech), suggests there is reason to be optimistic that counselors will be able to use their judgments to talk as they deem appropriate to those voluntarily seeking their assistance.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Does conversion therapy actually work? I have read that it might work under some circumstances, but generally does not. Same Sex Attraction (SSA) is a cross, and I doubt that in most cases, it can be “cured.” All we can do is love those so afflicted and encourage them to be celibate.
The propaganda is that it never works and is actually harmful.
The truth is that it sometimes “works” in the sense of reducing same sex attractions and behaviors, and is often psychologically helpful even for people’s whose sexual feelings do not change much. (BTW, what other therapeutic treatment modality is judged by the standard of whether it always “works?” Most therapeutic interventions “fail” by this standard because hardly any treatment “works” in the sense of 100% removal of the presenting problem for 100% of the clients.)
We at the Ruth Institute have a full resource center on Counseling Freedom for All, including links to the scientific research and numerous interviews. https://ruthinstitute.org/counseling-freedom-for-all/
So then what is the “success” rate for conversion therapy? Obviously, it’s not 100% but not 0% either. I would hope that the “therapists” involved are ethical and respectful with their clients. There are some horror stories.
Conversion therapy is not aversion therapy. Aversion therapy is harmful.
Conversion therapy is basically the same idea as talk therapy. There are horror stories about talk therapy too, but so far, no one’s banning that.
Amanda, with respect, you are mistaken. Banning talk therapy is exactly what these bans are all about. We can infer this for two reasons: 1. The physical aversion techniques can legitimately be considered torture. Torture is already illegal. No need for an additional ban. 2. To the best of my knowledge, no licensed therapist in America is using aversive techniques.
More to the point, the laws themselves state that they ban “any” effort to change sexual orientation or gender identity. Here is the relevant text of the Colorado law in question in the Chiles case. https://casetext.com/statute/colorado-revised-statutes/title-12-professions-and-occupations/health-care-professions-and-occupations/article-245-mental-health/part-2-general-provisions/section-12-245-202-definitions
“(a) “Conversion therapy” means any practice or treatment by a licensee, registrant, or certificate holder that attempts or purports to change an individual’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.”
Talk therapy is precisely what is at stake.
I don’t think all “SSA” is the same. Some people have definite biological issues, presumably hormonal imbalances that might have any number of causes. I suspect these constitute 1% or 2% of the population, but not much more than that. Others, though, are definitely “recruited”. That amounts to the same old trick of the devil: first presumption (“Don’t worry! There will be no consequences, only fun!”) then despair (“You are tainted forever, and you can never remove the stain.”). This, I think, is the majority of people with SSA in our current society. I would probably include people who have other mental illness issues or who have experienced trauma as a distinct category, but they have some overlap with the first two.
If the SSA has different causes, it follows that it will need to have different treatments, and different cases will have different prospects for successful treatment. People with hormonal and developmental issues will need medical assistance, and the odds are that their problems are too deep-seated for a full cure to be expected. People who have bought the line that sexual transgressions are harmless fun have a spiritual problem; they just need to repent and suffer through a recovery from an addiction or the breaking of bad habits, but recovery is possible if the will is there. People with mental illness of who are responding to trauma need psychological help with the underlying issues; their prospects for recovery probably very widely.
Let us think about this. If it is legal (for an adult) to change their “gender” through hormones and surgeries, why is it illegal to change one’s sexual proclivities (from gay to straight) through psychological therapies?
Good point. One that has no cogent rebuttal.
The ideology claims that sexual orientation is an innate immutable trait, and that gender identity is as well. This ideology holds that an individual can really and truly be “born in the wrong body” and at the same time, that an individual’s “gender identity” is a subjective state determined only by the individual.
This all comes down to the weird inconsistency the modern world has with the body, the soul, and their relationship to each other. There is a cognitive dissonance between the materialism (only the body is actually real, and the spirit is only for poetic expressions and is only believed in by the unenlightened) that is assumed for so much of daily life and the Gnosticism that permeates pop spirituality (the body is a disposable expression of the soul, something like a t-shirt).
The key difference lies in medical ethics, human rights, and scientific consensus. Gender-affirming care, including hormones and surgeries, is supported by extensive medical research and recognized as a legitimate treatment for gender dysphoria by major health organizations worldwide. It is provided with informed consent and aims to align an individual’s physical characteristics with their gender identity, improving mental health and well-being.
On the other hand, so-called “conversion therapy” for sexual orientation has been widely discredited and deemed unethical by organizations such as the American Psychological Association and the World Health Organization. Research has shown it to be ineffective and often harmful, leading to increased rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide. Unlike gender-affirming care, which supports an individual’s identity, conversion therapy is rooted in the assumption that being LGBTQ+ is something to be “fixed,” which contradicts modern psychological and medical understanding.
Ethical therapy provides a space for individuals to freely explore their identity, whether related to gender or sexual orientation, without coercion or a predetermined outcome. The goal of therapy is not to push someone in a particular direction but to help them understand themselves and make informed choices that align with their well-being. This is why gender-affirming care is considered valid and supportive, while conversion therapy is seen as harmful and restrictive.
What if an adult has unwanted attractions, intrusive thoughts and and behaviors? Can they not have the freedom to seek assistance in changing those?
Dude, not your body (or mind) or your choice, as the saying goes. If a person wants to change their sexual orientation, that’s “between them and their doctor” (or therapist, or snake oil salesman). It has nothing to do with you or anyone else.
.
Two can play this game.
A vaguely defined harmful impact of such conversion therapy [conduct], ignoring evidence to the contrary, rather than how it restricted religious freedom [free speech]. The core of the case presented by Charles Russo.
From the perspective of one who deals with confessed moral issues determined by manifest behavior, there’s similarity in terms of intent. We’re not mind readers, as if engaging in discernment. Neither are canon lawyers. And I would add judges when deciding cases. Although the trial court and Xth circuit decided in favor of conduct instead of free speech.
Russo anticipates striking down ‘compelled speech’, a legal terminology understood as state requirement forcing their interpretation of the matter in consequence violating the First Amendment. Is this a value judgment that may not stand despite precedence? The argument impinges on the weight of a constitutional right compared to such a value judgment. I would add here it is justifiable to assume the state’s value judgment is a prejudicial position based on personal ethics rather than law.
A value judgment that might not stand despite precedence? That is to say despite precedence that addresses free speech rather than conduct.
From the article: “The Supreme Court must clarify this distinction to determine whether officials in Colorado, and jurisdictions with similar laws, can continue to trammel the First Amendment speech rights of counselors by attempting to limit them to communicate only state-approved points of view.” Charlie Russo gets right to the heart of the issue here, one that is so absolutely chilling to me. I am very thankful the SC has agreed to hear this case & also optimistic of an outcome favoring free speech and religious liberty!
No true doctor committed to the ideals of Medicine and the Hippocratic principles of practice would ever become involved in conversion therapy in its mildest form (the use of hormone therapy) and would abhor the performance of life-threatening surgery designed to change the anatomical truth of a person rather than to cure pathological disease.
I should have said “if a person wants to change his sexual orientation…”