Conversion Therapy - Chiles v. Salazar

In a March 31, 2026, decision, the United States Supreme Court considered Colorado's conversion therapy ban and a challenge to the law alleging that it violated First Amendment rights. (Chiles v. Salazar, 146 S. Ct. 1010, 2026 U.S. LEXIS 1565 (U.S. Mar. 31, 2026))

Colorado enacted a law in 2019 that prohibited licensed counselors from engaging in conversion therapy with minors. The law broadly defined conversion therapy as any practice or treatment intended to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. Conversion therapy could also include any approach that may seek to reduce same-sex orientation or alter gender expression.

Chiles is a licensed professional counselor whose approach is centered on talk therapy with clients to help achieve the client's self-identified goals. She worked with a variety of clients, including those that may have concerns with sexual orientation or gender identity. She brought this challenge based upon her speech-based counseling practices and violation of her First Amendment rights.

Initially, Chiles sought injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of the conversion therapy law. Although the underlying courts determined she had standing to bring the challenge based upon her facing a credible threat of enforcement that required her to alter her conduct, her request for injunctive relief was denied. The underlying courts reasoned that the law regulated professional conduct, not speech, and upheld the new law.

This U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among federal circuit courts regarding the level of First Amendment protection afforded to counseling speech. The U.S. Supreme Court highlighted that the First Amendment strongly protects speech and that when the government discriminates "based on viewpoint" and not just "physical interventions", the constitutional violation is especially severe.

In this case, the professional conduct of counselors who provide treatment and the label of it as a therapeutic modality does not alter that it is in fact speech. In fact, the law supported one viewpoint to allow affirmation of a client's gender transition or sexual orientation but suppressed another with the ban for counselors from providing care to aid clients wishing to reduce same-sex attraction or to change gender identity.

This Court found no historical basis for creating a new category of speech entitled to diminished constitutional protection. The law was not one of regulation of professional conduct but instead was one that regulated speech. Reversed the judgment of the Tenth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion.

Highlight: In response, Colorado passed HB26-1322 that prohibits licensed therapists from imposing any predetermined outcome on a minor patient's sexual orientation or gender identity, regarding the outcome.