Supreme Court will hear challenge to Colorado ban on 'conversion therapy' for non-straight youth

The U.S. Supreme Court indicated Monday that it would hear a First Amendment challenge to the constitutionality of Colorado's 2019 counseling censorship law, which prohibits so-called "conversion therapy" for minors.

The controversial state law, an amendment to Colorado's Mental Health Practice Act, prohibits psychiatrists and mental health care providers from encouraging an individual to reconsider their sexual preference or to "change behaviors or gender expressions."

Under the law, a mental health professional who fails to indulge delusions or affirm homosexual inclination could face disciplinary actions, lose his license, and/or receive hefty fines. The law does not, however, similarly prohibit gender ideologues from encouraging confused children in therapy sessions to embrace the delusion that they are actually members of the opposite sex or to undergo sex changes.

Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor and practicing Christian who specializes in trauma but has also helped minors with eating disorders and gender dysphoria, filed a federal lawsuit in September 2022, alleging that the censorship law violates the Free Speech Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as applied to her.

'Their faith and their relationships with God supersede romantic attractions.'

Court documents indicate that Chiles has long worked with "adults who are seeking Christian counseling and minors who are internally motivated to seek counseling." Her clients, many of whom found her through referrals from churches or word of mouth, apparently uphold a biblical worldview that includes "the concepts that attractions do not dictate behavior, nor do feelings and perceptions determine identity"; that "their faith and their relationships with God supersede romantic attractions"; and that "God determines their identity according to what He has revealed in the Bible rather than their attractions or perceptions determining their identity."

Chiles indicated that she does not try to help minors alter their sexual preferences or identity if they are not seeking change. Rather, "she seeks only to assist clients 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."

'It is beyond dispute that these laws restrict speech.'

While she has yet to receive a complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the Colorado law has chilled her speech and adversely impacted both her counseling and ability to help minors.

The case, Chiles v. Salazar, made its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, where a Biden judge and Obama judge affirmed a lesser court's ruling in a 2-1 vote that the ban regulated Chiles' conduct rather than her speech.

Chiles' attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom filed a petition with the Supreme Court in November, asking 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."

ADF president and general counsel Kristen Waggoner stated, "The government has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors, nor should a counselor be used as a tool to impose the government's biased views on her clients."

"There is a growing consensus around the world that adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria need love and an opportunity to talk through their struggles and feelings," continued Waggoner. "Colorado's law prohibits what's best for these children and sends a clear message: The only option for children struggling with these issues is to give them dangerous and experimental drugs and surgery that will make them lifelong patients."

A ruling in Chiles' favor would threaten similar prohibitions in 27 states against helping minors overcome their confusion.

When the Supreme Court decided in December 2023 not to hear a First Amendment challenge to a similar "conversion therapy" ban in Washington state, Justice Samuel Alito noted in his dissent that he would have granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, adding, "In recent years, 20 States and the District of Columbia have adopted laws prohibiting or restricting the practice of conversion therapy. It is beyond dispute that these laws restrict speech, and all restrictions on speech merit careful scrutiny."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!