The Supreme Court has decided to hear a case that could challenge laws in Colorado, California, and 20 other states that ban licensed counselors from trying to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of minors. This case centers around a 1st Amendment claim made by Kaley Chiles, a counselor from Colorado, who argues that these laws infringe on her rights to free speech and religious practice.
These laws, which began in California in 2012, were enacted to protect minors from what is known as "conversion therapy." Lawmakers argue that such therapies are not only ineffective but can also cause significant harm, leading to higher rates of depression, anxiety, and even suicide among those who undergo them.
Chiles, who provides Christian-based counseling, argues that her clients seek her help to address unwanted sexual attractions and to find peace with their identities. She insists that she does not aim to "convert" or "cure" anyone but believes that the state should not censor the conversations she has with her clients.
The appeal is backed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal organization known for advocating similar cases, including those involving wedding service providers who refuse to serve same-sex couples.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Chiles, it could overturn similar laws across the country. The case will examine whether the government can impose strict regulations on professional speech, particularly in healthcare settings. Courts have generally upheld these laws, stating that states have the authority to regulate medical practices to protect patients from harmful treatments.
Colorado’s attorneys argue that counseling should not be equated with casual conversations among friends. They emphasize that counselors can face penalties, including fines or loss of their licenses, if they violate these laws. However, they note that the law does not apply to those providing services outside of a professional healthcare context, such as religious leaders.
Justice Clarence Thomas has voiced concerns that these laws may be used to silence certain viewpoints in a heated public debate about how to support minors with gender dysphoria. He has previously dissented in similar cases, arguing that counselors should be allowed to discuss all options, including helping minors accept their biological sex.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in this case, known as Chiles vs. Salazar, in the fall. This case is part of a broader discussion, as other states, including Tennessee, have enacted laws limiting medical treatments for minors with gender dysphoria. The Biden administration has challenged these laws, claiming they discriminate based on gender identity. The Supreme Court’s conservatives have shown a willingness to uphold states’ rights to regulate medical practices, which could influence the outcome of both cases.