Chiles v. Salazar

Docket Number: 24-539
Citation: 607/2
Term: October Term 2025
Argued: October 7, 2025
Decided: March 31, 2026
Lower Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Author: Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch
Concurring: Neil M. Gorsuch, John G. Roberts, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett
Dissenting: Ketanji Brown Jackson

AI-Generated Summary

Case Name: Chiles v. Salazar, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, et al.
Docket Number: No. 24–539
Dates: Argued October 7, 2025—Decided March 31, 2026
Lower Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (certiorari granted to resolve circuit conflict)

Kaley Chiles, a licensed mental health counselor in Colorado with a master’s degree, provides talk therapy to clients, including minors, tailored to their self-stated goals on issues like trauma, addiction, gender dysphoria, and sexuality. She respects clients' self-determination, employs no physical interventions or medications, and helps some clients content with their identity while assisting others seeking to reduce unwanted attractions, change behaviors, or align identity with their bodies.
In 2019, Colorado enacted a law banning licensed counselors from "conversion therapy" with minors, defined as practices attempting to change sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to alter behaviors, gender expressions, or same-sex attractions (Colo. Rev. Stat. §§12–245–202(3.5)(a), 12–245–224(1)(t)(V)). The law permits acceptance/support for identity exploration and assistance with gender transition (§§12–245–202(3.5)(b)(I)–(II)).
Chiles filed a federal suit seeking a preliminary injunction against the law as applied to her talk therapy, claiming First Amendment violation.
Procedural history: District court and Tenth Circuit found standing but denied injunction, viewing the law as regulating professional conduct (incidental speech regulation) subject to rational-basis review. Tenth Circuit dissent (Hartz, J.) argued for heightened scrutiny. Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Core question(s): Does Colorado’s conversion therapy ban, as applied to licensed counselor Kaley Chiles’s pure talk therapy with minors, violate the First Amendment by regulating speech based on content/viewpoint, or is it a valid regulation of professional conduct with only incidental speech burdens?
Legal basis: Interpretation of the First Amendment (free speech protections against content- and viewpoint-based restrictions).
Parties' main arguments:
Petitioner (Chiles): Law discriminates on viewpoint (permits affirming/transition speech but bans change-oriented speech); regulates pure speech by professionals, triggering strict scrutiny; not incidental to conduct.
Respondents (Colorado officials): Law regulates "professional conduct"/"therapeutic modalities" (including harmful treatments); speech burdens incidental, warranting rational- or intermediate-basis review; historical tradition of regulating substandard medical care.

Author & Type: GORSUCH, J., for the majority (joined by ROBERTS, C.J., THOMAS, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, JJ.; 8-1).
Holding: Colorado’s law, as applied to Chiles’s talk therapy, regulates speech based on content and viewpoint; lower courts erred by applying rational-basis review instead of strict scrutiny.
Legal Reasoning:
Content-based restrictions (regulating subject matter/communicative content) presumptively trigger strict scrutiny (Reed v. Town of Gilbert); viewpoint discrimination (favoring some perspectives) is even more egregious (Rosenberger).
No broad "professional speech" exception with diminished protection (NIFLA); protections extend to licensed professionals.
Law targets Chiles’s speech (not conduct); permits acceptance/affirmation but bans change efforts, effecting viewpoint discrimination; not "incidental" to conduct (Cohen, Holder precedents distinguish).
No historical tradition justifying exception (licensing traditionally sets qualifications, not views; informed-consent/malpractice differ as they tie to factual disclosures/physical acts/injury proof).
Disposition: Reversed Tenth Circuit judgment and remanded.

KAGAN, J. (joined by SOTOMAYOR, J.): Agrees law is viewpoint-discriminatory (bans change therapy but permits affirmation), triggering highest scrutiny. Notes content-based but viewpoint-neutral professional speech regulations (e.g., some medical standards) might warrant lesser scrutiny, as they pose less censorship risk (Vidal v. Elster); reserves for future.

JACKSON, J.: Law regulates professional conduct (harmful medical treatment per consensus) with incidental speech burdens on licensed providers (NIFLA, Casey); no heightened scrutiny needed. States' traditional police power over medical standards (licensing/malpractice history) permits viewpoint-based care restrictions without suppressing ideas. Fears ruling unravels regulation of speech-involved therapies, risking unsafe care.

Reinforces strict scrutiny for content-/viewpoint-based speech restrictions, even by/on licensed professionals; rejects "professional speech" carveout or incident-to-conduct dodge for pure talk therapy.
Limits states' latitude to ban therapies via speech without proving narrow tailoring to compelling interests; protects counselors' client-tailored speech against orthodoxy enforcement.
Upholds marketplace of ideas over transient medical consensus; may invalidate similar bans nationwide, emphasizing First Amendment bulwark against viewpoint suppression in therapy/counseling.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Key terms: Conversion Therapy Ban, Talk Therapy, Free Speech Rights