Case Summaries

Chiles v. Salazar, 609 U.S. ___ (2026)

By Shahana Polselli

Quick Facts

  • Docket Number.: 25-539
  • Granted: September 29, 2025
  • Argued: January 28, 2026
  • Decided: June 18, 2026
Pregnant woman belly with hands. American flag in the background
The Supreme Court of the United States in Washington DC

The Constitutional Question

 

Can a state prohibit licensed mental health professionals from engaging in “conversion therapy” with minors without violating the First Amendment? Though centered on counseling, the case raised a broader question: when does a state regulate professional conduct, and when does it regulate speech itself? The answer reaches doctors, lawyers, financial advisors, teachers, and other licensed professionals whose work depends on speaking with clients.

What Happened?

Over the past decade, many states enacted laws barring licensed counselors from performing “conversion therapy” on minors. These laws are based on medical and psychological organizations’ conclusion that trying to change a young person’s sexual orientation or gender identity can be ineffective and harmful. The statutes generally prohibited therapeutic practices aimed at changing or suppressing a minor’s orientation or identity rather than banning discussion of the topics.

Colorado adopted such a law, prohibiting licensed professionals from providing conversion therapy to anyone under eighteen while permitting counseling that affirmed a minor’s orientation or identity. Violators risked license suspension or revocation. Licensed counselor Kaley Chiles challenged the law before being disciplined. Chiles asserted that some clients voluntarily sought counseling aligned with their religious beliefs and personal goals, and that the law barred honest conversations simply because the State disagreed with the viewpoint expressed. Colorado defended the statute as a regulation of professional conduct, comparing it to rules barring dangerous prescriptions or incompetent legal advice. The district court and the Tenth Circuit upheld the law as regulating treatment, not speech. Because appellate courts had split on similar laws, the Supreme Court granted review.

Sad preteen boy sitting alone in chair facing wall.

What Did The Supreme Court Decide?

The Court ruled for Chiles, holding the law violated the First Amendment. The statute regulated speech—not merely conduct—because it prohibited counselors from expressing one viewpoint while allowing the opposite. In other words, under the Colorado law, a counselor could affirm a client’s identity but could not, at the client’s request, help reduce or change those feelings. Because the law discriminated based on the content and viewpoint of speech, it faced the Constitution’s most demanding review, which Colorado failed to satisfy. The Court struck it down.

Why Did The Court Reach That Result?

Counseling Is Primarily Speech

Counseling consists almost entirely of conversation. Unlike surgery or other treatment involving physical conduct, psychotherapy depends on words—listening, questioning, advising, and working through personal issues through dialogue. Because speech is its primary tool, laws restricting what counselors may say implicate the First Amendment. States may broadly regulate licensed professions, but that authority does not let officials decide which viewpoints professionals may express to consenting clients.

The Law Treated Different Viewpoints Differently

The gravest problem was the law’s unequal treatment of competing viewpoints. A counselor could freely affirm a transgender identity or same-sex attraction, but could not provide counseling consistent with religious beliefs encouraging different choices. The determining factor was not the counselor’s methods but the perspective expressed. The First Amendment generally forbids government from favoring one viewpoint over another and protects unpopular speech as vigorously as popular speech.

Girl with arms folded and holding knees.
Teenage girl being bored and difficult at home.

Protecting Children Is an Important Goal—but Not Enough

The Court acknowledged Colorado’s compelling interest in protecting children, noting many organizations link conversion therapy to psychological harm. But constitutional rights cannot be suspended merely because an objective is well-intentioned; restrictions on speech must be narrowly tailored to a compelling interest. The law swept too broadly, prohibiting entire categories of conversation based solely on viewpoint even when clients voluntarily sought counseling. States may still regulate fraud, coercion, and malpractice—just not speech they disagree with.

The Decision Was Not About Whether Conversion Therapy Works

The Court clarified what it was not deciding. It did not determine whether conversion therapy is effective or appropriate, nor did it reject the scientific conclusions of professional organizations. The constitutional question concerned governmental authority—whether the State could prohibit certain conversations because it disagreed with the viewpoints expressed. Regardless of the policy debate, the First Amendment imposes meaningful limits on regulating speech between professionals and clients.

Why This Decision Matters

Chiles v. Salazar is likely to become a leading decision on professional speech, reaching well beyond counseling. Doctors discuss controversial treatments, lawyers advise on sensitive matters, and financial advisors recommend discouraged strategies. Professional licensing does not eliminate First Amendment protection. The decision reflects the Court’s continuing skepticism toward viewpoint-based speech regulation, while leaving states broad authority over professional conduct. Licensing, education standards, malpractice, and discipline remain intact. States may not use licensing to control which ideas professionals discuss with willing clients. The ruling will likely prompt challenges to similar laws elsewhere.

Bottom Line Take Away

In Chiles v. Salazar, the Court held that Colorado crossed a constitutional line by regulating conversations rather than conduct. Though states may broadly regulate licensed professions and protect minors, they cannot prohibit speech simply because they disagree with the viewpoint expressed. The Court reinforced a central First Amendment principle: government may regulate professional conduct, but generally may not decide which ideas professionals may discuss with their clients.

 

Join Our Mailing List