The Supreme Court signaled skepticism Tuesday over Colorado’s ban on counseling practices that aim to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, raising sharp questions about whether the law censors protected speech, Breitbart reported.
Colorado’s statute, passed in 2019, prohibits licensed counselors from attempting to alter a client’s sexuality or identity, including through talk therapy.
While it formally outlaws discredited practices like electroshock therapy, it also bars voluntary counseling for minors seeking to align their feelings with their biological sex.
Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor and practicing Christian, sued the state, arguing the law prevents her from engaging in conversations with clients who ask for help reconciling their faith and identity.
Court filings note she “believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex.”
Chiles contends the law violates the First Amendment by restricting speech based on viewpoint, allowing only “affirmation” counseling while prohibiting alternative approaches.
Colorado countered that licensed professionals can be disciplined for treatment that falls below accepted medical standards.
During 90 minutes of oral arguments, the court’s conservative majority pressed the state on whether the law unfairly silences one side of the debate.
Justice Samuel Alito, drawing parallels to a 2018 case involving compelled speech at pro-life centers, called the restrictions “blatant viewpoint discrimination.”
“One viewpoint is the viewpoint that a minor should be able to obtain talk therapy to overcome same-sex attraction, if that’s what he or she wants,” Alito said. “And the other is the viewpoint that the minor should not be able to obtain talk therapy to overcome same-sex attraction, even if that is what he or she wants.
“Looks like blatant viewpoint discrimination.”
Justice Elena Kagan, often aligned with the Court’s liberal wing, appeared to share concerns. “Seems like viewpoint discrimination in the way we would normally understand viewpoint discrimination,” she told Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson.
Alito also questioned reliance on medical consensus, noting past examples when professional standards were later discredited. “The medical consensus is usually very reasonable, and it’s very important,” he said. “But have there been times when the medical consensus has been politicized, has been taken over by ideology?”
Justice Neil Gorsuch pressed Stevenson on whether Chiles could be barred from helping a voluntary client embrace biological reality.
Stevenson conceded that the law would prohibit such counseling.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal, acknowledged that admission gave Chiles standing to challenge the statute.
The justices suggested the case could be remanded for review under stricter First Amendment standards, leaving the law vulnerable to future challenges without striking it down outright.
The dispute, Chiles v. Salazar, is the latest test of state efforts to regulate counseling on sexuality and gender identity. A decision is expected by next year.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
