On Tuesday, October 7, the United States Supreme Court heard opening arguments in a case brought by a religious counselor who claims that Colorado’s 2019 ban on conversion therapy violates her First Amendment right to free speech. While a decision isn’t expected until later this year, the case could have major implications for LGBTQIA+ rights and professional standards in counseling.
Kaley Chiles, the petitioner, is an Evangelical Christian licensed talk therapist. She claims that much of her clientele “seek her counsel precisely because they believe that their faith and their relationship with God establishes the foundation upon which to understand their identity and desires.” Chiles argues that Colorado’s ban, which prohibits medical professionals from engaging in conversion therapy, limits her ability to provide faith-based counseling.
Conversion therapy is defined as:
Any practice or treatment by a licensed physician specializing in the practice of psychiatry that attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.
Under Colorado’s House Bill 19-1129, licensed medical professionals are prohibited from engaging in any treatment aimed at reducing or eliminating same-sex attraction or altering gender expression. Chiles argued in the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals that the federal court should prevent the state from enforcing the ban because it would affect her ability to practice and provide her clients with the services they seek. Her arguments centered on the belief that the Colorado ban infringed upon her First Amendment Right under the United States Constitution, with particular reference to the right to speak and think freely, which was part of her role as a talk therapist for minors. In other words, she considers her professional conduct to be protected by the First Amendment. However, the 10th Circuit Court upheld the ban, ruling that Chiles’ conduct was not protected speech, but rather professional conduct regulated by state standards.
Following her’ appeal, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case this term. The question that the Supreme Court will be answering is:
Does a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulate conduct or violate the Free Speech Clause?
Although this case is not scheduled to be decided until later this year, the court has begun to indicate how it will proceed in determining the case. Critically, a majority of the court, across ideological lines, seemed inclined to rule against the Colorado law, with Justice Alito stating that the ban “looks like blatant viewpoint discrimination.” However, another perspective shared by Justice Jackson is that “medical doctors would clearly be liable if they used a medication that the state deemed substandard care.”
This case is more than a legal technicality. It poses a potential threat to the right of individuals to live authentically, without fear of being coerced or pressured to change who they are. If the Court overturns Colorado’s ban, it could weaken protections for LGBTQIA+ people nationwide. The Supreme Court should be careful not to conflate professional conduct with personal belief, especially in matters affecting health, safety, and human dignity.