Chiles v. Salazar
| Chiles v. Salazar | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Full case name | Kaley Chiles, Petitioner v. Patty Salazar, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, et al. |
| Docket no. | 24-539 |
| Case history | |
| Prior |
|
| Questions presented | |
| 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. | |
Chiles v. Salazar, Docket No. 24-539, is a pending United States Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors by licensed mental health professionals.[1]
Background
[edit]Colorado's Minor Conversion Therapy Law (MCTL), passed in 2019, prohibits licensed mental health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy with clients under 18 with an exemption for therapists "engaged in the practice of religious ministry". Conversion therapy refers to practices aiming to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity. Over 20 states have similar laws which are supported by major medical organizations.[2][1] The Supreme Court has turned down earlier cases challenging state bans on conversion therapy.[2]
The plaintiff, Kaley Chiles, is a licensed professional counselor in Colorado. In her petition to the court she stated that as "a practicing Christian, Chiles believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex." Her lawsuit says she wants to help patients with the goal of "seeking to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors or grow in the experience of harmony with one’s physical body". She contends that the law violates the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.[2][1]
Chiles is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian law firm that opposes LGBT rights and has sucessfully argued before the Supreme Court previously in cases such as 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.[2]
Lower court history
[edit]Chiles filed a pre-enforcement challenge against the MCTL, asserting violations of the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. She sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the law's enforcement. The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied her motion, finding that while she had standing, she failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. The court concluded that the MCTL regulates professional conduct that incidentally involves speech and is therefore subject to rational basis review, which it survives.[3]
Chiles appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The 3-judge Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling, agreeing that Colorado was entitled to regulate professional conduct and citing evidence of the harm's conversion therapy can cause minors. Judge Harris Hartz dissented, arguing "courts must be particularly wary that in a contentious and evolving field, the government and its supporters would like to bypass the marketplace of ideas and declare victory for their preferred ideas by fiat".[2][3]
Supreme Court
[edit]Following the Tenth Circuit's decision, Chiles petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari, arguing that the MCTL violates her First Amendment rights by censoring certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed. She contended that governments do not have greater authority to regulate speech simply because the speaker is licensed or providing specialized advice.[4]
On March 10, 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case, signaling its intent to address the constitutional questions surrounding the regulation of professional speech and the balance between state regulatory power and free speech rights within professional contexts. The case will be heard during the Court's 2025-26 Term, with a decision expected by the end of June 2026.
Justices Clerence Thomas and Samuel Alito have already indicated that they think Conversion Therapy bans to minors are unconstitutional when the Supreme Court declined to hear a similar case called Tingley v. Feguson. However, it is unclear how the 7 other justices view the constitutionality of conversion therapy bans.[5]
See also
[edit]- National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, a case challenging a California law forcing pro-life centers to provide abortion info.
References
[edit]- ^ a b c "PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. 2024-11-08. Retrieved 2025-03-10.
- ^ a b c d e Liptak, Adam (2025-03-10). "Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Law Banning Conversion Therapy". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2025-03-11.
- ^ a b Chiles v. Salazar, 116 F.4th 1178 (10th Cir. 2024).
- ^ "Supreme Court takes up challenge to Colorado ban on "conversion therapy"". SCOTUSblog. 2025-03-10. Retrieved 2025-03-10.
- ^ Thomas and Alito see First Amendment violations in conversion therapy law | Courthouse News Service