The Supreme Court is gearing up for arguments regarding a significant case involving counseling services for minors and their constitutional rights. The focus of the case is on whether licensed therapists, specifically those like Kaley Chiles, can conduct conversations with youth about gender identity and sexual orientation as a matter of protected speech under the First Amendment.
Chiles, a therapist from Colorado Springs, maintains that her faith-based approach to counseling should be classified as protected free speech. Her legal representatives argue that she aims to promote what they believe is a healthier alignment with one’s biological sex. Chiles provides a form of talk therapy for young clients seeking to explore or change their sexual attractions and behaviors, believing that her methods will help these individuals find harmony with their physical bodies.
The state of Colorado, however, has a different view. The state enacted a law in 2019 that bans what it terms “conversion therapy,” a move that has been replicated in nearly two dozen other states. According to state officials, this law is designed to protect minors from therapies that might impose a predetermined outcome regarding their sexual orientation. The law has stirred heated debate, with critics asserting that it inherently censors viewpoints like Chiles’ that diverge from state-dictated narratives.
Attorney General Phil Weiser argues strongly in defense of the law, characterizing conversion therapy as a harmful practice that can lead to severe psychological distress in youth. “So-called conversion therapy is an inhumane and abusive practice overwhelmingly shown to harm young people,” he stated, emphasizing the government’s role in safeguarding vulnerable individuals.
The case’s implications stretch beyond Colorado. If the Court sides with Chiles, it could set a precedent affecting similar laws across the nation. Already, past decisions show a pattern where the Supreme Court has defended the religious freedoms and speech rights of individuals in contexts that challenge evolving societal norms. A recent case involving a web designer showcased the Court’s willingness to prioritize faith-based beliefs over mandated inclusivity.
Chiles’ situation emerged from Colorado’s attempts to regulate conversations around gender and sexuality, leading to fears among therapists that they might face severe repercussions for expressing beliefs pertaining to sexual orientation in their practices. Chiles’ lawyers claim Colorado’s statute suppresses her and other therapists’ rights by enforcing a one-sided understanding of counseling and therapy. “Colorado’s statute has undeniably silenced her,” they argue, pointing to the law’s scope and potential penalties.
On the opposing side, the case has also galvanized support from a variety of medical and mental health institutions, as well as nearly 200 Democratic congressional members who favor the law. They stress that the guidelines established by the state are crucial for safeguarding the mental health of minors navigating complex issues of identity.
In the legal battle ahead, Chiles’ attorneys and advocacy groups, such as the Alliance Defending Freedom, hope for a ruling that reaffirms the rights of practitioners in the context of faith and speech. Kate Anderson from the advocacy group expressed optimism by invoking the recent decision favoring the web designer, stating, “We’re hopeful that the Supreme Court will again give a bold vindication of free speech for everyone,” drawing parallels between the two cases.
As oral arguments approach, all eyes will be on how the Supreme Court navigates the often contentious intersection of professional counseling, parental rights, and free speech. The outcomes could profoundly influence the future of similar laws across the country, shaping the landscape of mental health care and religious expression in America.
"*" indicates required fields
