Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at [email protected].

On March 10, the Supreme Court granted review in a case likely to become the marquee challenge of the October 2025 term. At issue in Chiles v. Salazar is the constitutionality of Colorado’s so-called “conversion therapy” ban which regulates the speech of therapists who counsel their clients to live consistently with what they believe is God’s design, in contravention of progressive sexual mores.

More than a year ago, the Supreme Court declined to take up a challenge to a Washington state law prohibiting licensed therapists from having the same types of conversations with their minor clients, a move which prompted a strenuous dissent from denial of review from Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh.

Here, petitioner Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor and practicing Christian, is often sought by clients who believe their faith and relationship with God establish the foundation upon which to understand their personal identities. Colorado’s ban, however, bars consensual therapeutic conversations of this nature based on the viewpoints expressed. It does so while permitting conversations that encourage clients toward “acceptance, support, and understanding for the facilitation of an individual's coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual-orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices, as long as the counseling does not seek to change sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Chiles explains that she does not necessarily seek to change patients’ sexual orientations or gender identities, but she does want to assist them when they seek help due to unwanted attractions or feelings. She argues that the state ban interferes with her ability to treat individuals with “same-sex attractions or gender identity confusion” who “prioritize their faith above their feelings,” in violation of her religious exercise and free speech rights.

The Tenth Circuit held that the Colorado ban was a regulation of Chiles’s conduct, not her speech. As Chiles recognized in her petition for cert, the court thereby deepened a circuit split that already existed between the Eleventh and Third Circuits (which do not treat counseling conversations as conduct) and the Ninth Circuit (which does).

Chiles has asked the Supreme Court to discern whether Colorado’s law, which censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed, is a regulation of professional conduct or a violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

The distinction between professional conduct and First Amendment-protected professional speech has long needed further clarification by the Supreme Court. But some of its cases provide a possible blueprint for disposition.

As recently as 2023, in 303 Creative v. Elenis, the Court was tasked with determining the constitutionality of another Colorado law, a law preventing any “public accommodations” from denying “the full and equal enjoyment” of its goods and services to any customer based on, among other things, sexual orientation. The court held that the First Amendment prohibited Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagreed. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that, “the First Amendment extends to all persons engaged in expressive conduct, including those who seek profit.”

Earlier, in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010), the Supreme Court held that even laws that “generally function[ ] as a regulation of conduct” still silence speech if they target “a message.” And in 2018, in National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra, the court went further, saying that “[s]peech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by ‘professionals.’”

But just as it did in 303 Creative, the state of Colorado in Chiles v. Salazar has argued that its ban only regulates professional conduct, not speech. It argues that because counselors are professional health care providers, it may discipline those providers who use treatments on children that the Colorado legislature has “reasonably determined to be below the standard of care.”

Chiles argues that Colorado “do[es] not have a freer hand to regulate speech simply because the speaker is ‘licensed’ or giving ‘specialized advice.’” And she warns that the Tenth Circuit’s rule “has devastating real-world consequences. In jurisdictions with counseling restrictions,” she writes, “many young people cannot receive the care they seek—and critically need.”

Oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar will be held sometime in the fall of 2025, with a decision likely to follow in early summer 2026.