Table of Contents
- Supreme Court Takes Up Conversion Therapy Ban
- The Case: Chiles v. Salazar Explained
- Is Therapy Speech or Conduct?
- What Is Conversion Therapy?
- Precedent: NIFLA and the First Amendment
- Why This Ruling Could Reshape Protections Nationwide
- Sources
Supreme Court Takes Up Conversion Therapy Ban
While much of the federal government remains shuttered due to a budget impasse, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed open on Tuesday, October 7, 2025, to hear one of the most consequential cases of the term: a constitutional challenge to Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors.
The case, Chiles v. Salazar, pits free speech rights against public health protections—and its outcome could invalidate similar laws in more than 20 states.
The Case: Chiles v. Salazar Explained
Kaley Chiles, a 35-year-old licensed therapist and evangelical Christian from Colorado Springs, argues that Colorado’s 2019 law—which prohibits mental health professionals from offering conversion therapy to anyone under 18—violates her First Amendment rights.
Chiles insists she doesn’t seek to “cure” same-sex attraction but instead offers voluntary, faith-based counseling to minors who wish to align their lives with their religious beliefs. “I’m helping clients explore their own values,” she said in court filings.
Colorado’s law, backed by the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association, bans any practice aimed at changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Though never enforced, it carries fines up to $5,000 and potential license suspension.
Is Therapy Speech or Conduct?
This is the core legal question before the justices—and it’s far from simple.
If therapy is considered speech, then Colorado’s law must survive “strict scrutiny,” the highest constitutional standard. If it’s professional conduct—even if delivered through words—the state can regulate it to protect public health.
Chiles’s legal team, backed by the conservative Christian group Alliance Defending Freedom, argues therapy is inherently expressive. “Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by ‘professionals,’” they quote from a 2018 Supreme Court ruling.
Colorado counters that states have long regulated medical and mental health treatments—even those involving conversation—to shield patients from harmful or discredited practices.
What Is Conversion Therapy?
Conversion therapy refers to any effort to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Historically, it included aversive techniques like electric shocks. Today, most practitioners use talk therapy or cognitive behavioral methods—but major medical organizations still condemn all forms for minors.
A 2019 UCLA Williams Institute study estimated that nearly 700,000 U.S. adults have undergone some form of conversion therapy—about half before age 18. Research consistently links the practice to depression, anxiety, and elevated suicide risk among LGBTQ+ youth.
Key Facts About Conversion Therapy in the U.S.
| Statistic | Figure |
|---|---|
| Adults who received conversion therapy | ~698,000 |
| Received it before age 18 | ~50% |
| States with bans on licensed providers | 22+ (as of 2025) |
| Licensed counselors still advertising such services | ~660 (Trevor Project, 2023) |
Precedent: NIFLA and the First Amendment
Chiles’s team heavily relies on National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018), where the Court struck down a California law requiring crisis pregnancy centers to post notices about state-funded abortions.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote: “Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by ‘professionals.’” That ruling has become a cornerstone for challenges to professional regulations involving speech—including this one.
But Colorado argues NIFLA didn’t eliminate states’ power to ban harmful medical practices. “The First Amendment allows states to regulate substandard professional health care treatment,” its brief states, “regardless of whether that treatment involves words.”
Why This Ruling Could Reshape Protections Nationwide
A decision in Chiles’s favor would likely invalidate conversion therapy bans across the country, reopening the door for licensed counselors to offer these services to vulnerable minors—even under the guise of “voluntary” or “faith-based” counseling.
Conversely, upholding Colorado’s law would affirm that states can act on medical consensus to protect youth from psychological harm, even when the intervention is verbal.
Coming just months after the Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for teens in U.S. v. Skrmetti, this case tests whether the conservative majority will apply the same deference to democratic policymaking—or carve out an exception for religious speech.
Either way, the future of conversion therapy regulation in America hinges on how nine justices answer one deceptively simple question: Is therapy speech—or is it medicine?
