Chiles v. Salazar: Therapeutic Conversation or Conversion Therapy? 

By: Sybil Sides, Vol. 24 Staff Writer

What’s the 411?  

On October 7^th, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for the case of Chiles v. Salazar.  Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor in Colorado, provides talk-therapy to minors and often uses her Christian faith in her practice.  Chiles contends that many of her clients seek Christian-based counseling to quash unwanted sexual attractions and to become content with their biological sex.  Some of Chiles’ clients come from church referrals, specifically to “prioritize their faith above their feelings.” 

In 2019, Colorado passed a Counseling Restriction that prohibits the kind of talk-therapy that Chiles’ clients are alleged to have sought out.  The Minor Conversion Therapy Law (MCTL) prohibits professionals like Chiles from providing treatment to minors that attempts to change sexual orientation or gender identity.  Violation of the law could result in board disciplinary action.   

This has led to the issue that is now before the Supreme Court: whether Colorado’s law is a regulation of a counselor’s conduct or a First Amendment violation of the Freedom of Speech Clause. 

Talking Points  

On appeal from the district court’s decision in favor of the State, the Tenth Circuit agreed that speech affected by the MCTL is only incidental to the conduct that it is regulating.  Applying the rational-basis test, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the MCTL regulates the medical conduct of professionals that provide healthcare treatment and rejected Chiles’ argument that her counseling is “not medical at all” but instead involve “client-directed” conversations. 

Upholding the MCTL, the Tenth Circuit joined the Ninth Circuit’s view, resulting in a circuit split with the Eleventh and Third Circuits.  The Ninth Circuit previously held that regulations banning talk therapy do not pose any constitutional infringement on speech. By viewing the issue on a continuum, the Ninth Circuit found that “sexual orientation change efforts” therapy fell on the end of professional misconduct.   

Chiles, however, urges the Supreme Court to adopt the Eleventh and Third Circuit’s holdings thus requiring talk therapy to be treated as speech falling within First Amendment protections.  The Eleventh Circuit resolved the content-based-or-not question as an “easy” one: conversion therapy bans are subject to strict scrutiny “because the ordinances depend on what is said[.]”   

Where the Conversation Left Off

At oral argument, some Justices appeared to have differing concerns about the proper standard to be applied.  Justice Jackson noted that it would be odd to allow different medical professionals to treat the same condition with different treatments, yet one would be subject to different constitutional protections. Additionally, she noted that there certainly must be evidence conversion therapy is harmful considering that 25 other states have passed similar laws to Colorado’s.   

Chile’s counsel argues however, that the studies lump shock therapy with voluntary conversations. Justice Sotomayer seemed to suggest that the studies may not be necessary to overcome a strict scrutiny analysis.  She posed the example that a study would not be necessary if states told dietitians not to “encourage anorexic patients to engage in more restricted eating.” 

Justice Alito questioned whether ideology has perhaps infiltrated medical consensus and cited an era where medical professionals believed children with Down Syndrome should be institutionalized after birth. Similarly, Counsel for the Trump Administration argued that strict scrutiny was the proper measure because “the law restricts speech based on content and viewpoint.”  

Justice Alito’s comment suggested the familiar sentiment as the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion noting the dangers of content regulation by citing NIFLA: “[a]s with other kinds of speech, regulating the content of professionals’ speech poses the inherent risk that the Government seeks not to advance a legitimate regulatory goal, but to suppress unpopular ideas or information.”  

Implications

Upholding the ban on conversion therapy could allow the states “to interfere with [] conversations between professionals and their clients” based off of what the state views as unsafe.  This poses the question: if a legislature is majorly composed of people that view abortion as unsafe, is it possible that upholding the ban would allow for a regulation of talk-therapy that encourages terminating a pregnancy regardless of the client’s wishes?  Counsel for Chiles urged the Supreme Court to apply heightened scrutiny because, if not, “states can transform counselors into mouthpieces for the government.”  

Conversely, barring regulation on talk-therapy would limit states ability to “ensure mental healthcare professionals comply with the standard of care.”  This poses another question: could barring regulation potentially enable mental health counselors to freely impose their personal beliefs on minors regardless of a client’s circumstances?  For example, could a counselor who vehemently opposed divorce discourage a client from leaving an abusive spouse?  

Hopefully the Supreme Court will shed light on some of these competing concerns in their decision, which is expected by summer of 2026.