The U.S. Supreme Court sided with a Christian therapist who counsels young people with gender dysphoria on Tuesday, March 31, remanding to lower courts a Colorado law that banned so-called “conversion therapy.”
The use of the phrase "conversion therapy" is itself controversial, as many therapists do not consider their work is described in any way by this terminology.
Some 23 states and Washington, D.C., have laws prohibiting licensed healthcare providers from offering minors “conversion therapy,” a term which can have various meanings, but is commonly understood to be treatment intended to change a client’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Colorado passed its ban in 2019, allowing an exemption for therapists “engaged in the practice of religious ministry.”
Christian counselor Kaley Chiles went to federal court in Colorado to challenge the law:
She contended that she did not attempt to “convert” her clients. Instead, she said, she merely tried to help them “with their stated desires and objectives in counseling, which sometimes includes clients seeking to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of harmony with one’s physical body.”
Alliance Defending Freedom represented Chiles and described how the ban violated freedom of speech in a statement:
Colorado legislators passed a law in 2019 that targets the speech of counselors, specifically in private conversations with clients about gender identity.
The law bars licensed counselors from saying anything to clients under the age of 18 that “attempts or purports to change an individual’s … gender identity.”
Notably, the law only censors speech in one direction. The law enables counselors to “assist” anyone who is “undergoing gender transition.” So counselors may push young clients toward a gender identity different from their sex, which will often lead to harmful drugs and procedures.
But counselors are prohibited from helping clients find peace with their biological sex—even when that is the client’s personal goal.
The case came before the Supreme Court as Chiles v. Salazar. By a vote of 8-1, the justices agreed with Chiles that the law, as applied to her talk therapy, violates the First Amendment. This majority included Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, two of the Court's liberal members, who wrote separately to emphasize that Colorado's law was constitutionally flawed because it suppressed one side of an ongoing public debate.
The Court ruled that Colorado's law, as applied to Chiles's talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint and must be subjected to the strictest level of constitutional scrutiny. The decision does not strike down the law outright, but remands it to lower courts — where, under that heightened standard, it will face a very high bar to survive.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter. She argued that the majority’s opinion “could be ushering in an era of unprofessional and unsafe medical care administered by effectively unsupervised healthcare providers.”
The Colorado Catholic Conference issued a statement supporting the Court’s decision:
The Colorado Catholic Conference is heartened by the Chiles v. Salazar victory at the Supreme Court of the United States on Tuesday, March 31. Chiles v. Salazar precedent rejects Colorado’s ban on genuine care for minors by their parents and counselors who offer compassionate care for gender dysphoria, backed by longstanding research that shows children experiencing gender dysphoria naturally grow out of their distress and do not need life-altering medical intervention. Preventing this option to parents and practitioners puts ideology before the healthcare of children.
Coloradans continue to advocate for parental rights and religious liberty in our state Capitol, including against HB26-1309, which is another attempt to prohibit parents from making important medical and life decisions for their children. HB26-1309 would consider a parent who provides their child with care for gender dysphoria – such as the counseling by petitioner Kaley Chiles— as a form of “coercive control” and “abuse,” subject to scrutiny from Colorado courts in parental custody decisions. We should be concerned whenever government policy is to prohibit free speech and even remove children from their families because parents and children disagree about well-founded beliefs.
Chiles v. Salazar provides Colorado lawmakers with a timely directive: Colorado’s laws targeting the speech of counselors and parents harm our children and violate the First Amendment. The Colorado bishops are thankful for the United States Supreme Court's decision and will continue to advocate for parental rights and religious liberty in our state, relying on this new precedent.
