In a high-stakes clash over free speech and state regulation, the U.S. Supreme Court is diving into a Colorado case centered on so-called “conversion therapy.”
Licensed therapist Kaley Chiles, backed by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), argues that a Colorado law banning therapy aimed at altering same-sex attraction in children infringes on her First Amendment rights. The case, Chiles v. Salazar, set for arguments Tuesday, could reshape the legal landscape for professional speech and religious freedom nationwide.
Chiles, a devout Christian, claims the law stifles honest discussions about faith and identity with her clients. “If I can’t speak freely and authentically, I’m failing my clients.”
ADF’s Kate Anderson, who is defending Chiles’ right to provide counseling tailored to clients’ personal goals, says, “This is about voluntary conversations where clients seek to align their feelings with their faith or biological reality.”
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser defends the law as rooted in medical consensus, arguing it “lacks any basis and doesn’t work, no matter how it’s done.” In a statement, Weiser clarified the law “does not prevent health care professionals from sharing information, content, or viewpoints with a patient or others” and “does not require therapists to ‘affirm’ any orientation or identity.”
There is a greater pattern of concern in Colorado of targeting religious individuals, however, with cases like Jack Phillips, the baker who refused to create cakes for same-sex weddings, and a web designer who declined similar services. Additionally, a recent Colorado law, HB 1312, has come into place which mandates the use of a person’s preferred pronoun in public accommodations.
The 10th Circuit Court previously upheld Colorado’s ban, framing it as a regulation of professional conduct, not speech—a distinction now under Supreme Court scrutiny. With 24 states and Washington, D.C. banning conversion therapy for children, and four states blocking such bans, the ruling could ripple widely.
Under Colorado law, therapists like Chiles face fines or license suspension, making the Supreme Court’s decision so significant as it carries with the the ability to redefine the balance between state authority and individual rights.
A decision on the case will be released by the Supreme Court in June of 2026.
