In a victory for free speech, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on Tuesday that Colorado cannot stop licensed counselors from using “talk therapy” to help minors who want to change their sexual orientation or gender identity.
The decision in Chiles v. Salazar strikes down a 2019 state law that labeled such conversations as “conversion therapy.”
While the state argued the law was a medical regulation meant to protect children from harm, the High Court found it was actually an unconstitutional attempt to silence a specific viewpoint.
Kaley Chiles, a licensed mental health counselor, sued the state because she wanted to offer “talk therapy” to young clients seeking to reduce unwanted same-sex attractions or to align their identity with their biological sex.
Under the 2019 law, Chiles faced fines or the loss of her license if she helped a minor reach those specific goals. However, the same law explicitly allowed counselors to provide “acceptance, support, and understanding” for a minor’s gender transition or identity exploration.
READ: Trump Issues Sharp Rebuke To France And UK Amid War In Iran
Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said the First Amendment does not allow the government to pick favorites in a debate. He noted that the law essentially created a “one-way street” where only the state-approved perspective was legal.
“The First Amendment stands as a bulwark against any effort to prescribe an orthodoxy of views,” Gorsuch wrote. “However well-intentioned, any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an egregious assault on [our] commitments.”
The Court rejected Colorado’s argument that talk therapy is “conduct” or a “medical procedure” rather than speech. Because Chiles uses no drugs, no physical restraints, and no “aversive” techniques like electric shocks, the Court ruled her work consists entirely of the spoken word—the “quintessential form of protected speech.”
The ruling saw a rare alignment of the Court’s conservative and liberal wings. Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor joined the majority, though Kagan wrote a separate “concurring” opinion. She agreed that this specific law was biased, but suggested that a more “neutral” law—one that banned certain topics without favoring one side—might still be constitutional.
The only “no” vote came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. In a sharp dissent, she argued that the ruling “plays with fire” and could strip states of their power to protect patients from substandard medical care.
“The Constitution does not pose a barrier to reasonable regulation of harmful medical treatments just because substandard care comes via speech instead of scalpel,” Jackson wrote.
The ruling does not bring back “aversive” practices like electric shock therapy, which Chiles herself called “long-abandoned” and did not defend. Instead, it creates a protective bubble around “talk therapy.”
The decision is expected to have an immediate ripple effect across the 25 other states with similar bans. For now, in Colorado, a counselor’s right to speak with a consenting client—even on controversial topics of identity—is officially protected by the highest law in the land.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
