Supreme Court Could Redefine the Limits of State Power

As the Supreme Court considers Chiles v. Salazar, a case examining Colorado’s 2019 ban on gay conversion therapy for minors, the justices face a dispute that could reshape how states regulate licensed mental health professionals.

The case turns on a single constitutional question: whether Colorado’s restriction on “any practice or treatment … that attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity” is a permissible regulation of professional conduct or an unconstitutional limit on speech.

Newsweek sought views from religious, legal and medical experts as the Supreme Court prepares to issue its ruling in the coming weeks.

Why It Matters

As the Supreme Court weighs Chiles v. Salazar, the outcome stands to reshape far more than Colorado’s 2019 ban on conversion therapy for minors.

The case asks whether states may regulate a licensed therapist’s treatment when that treatment is delivered through speech—an issue that could affect health care oversight nationwide.

Supporters of the ban cite extensive evidence that conversion therapy endangers minors, while the petitioner argues the law unlawfully censors viewpoint-based counseling.

Legal scholars warn that a ruling for Chiles could threaten similar bans in more than 20 states and weaken professional standards across medical and mental health fields, while a ruling for Colorado would reaffirm broad state authority to restrict harmful practices involving children.

What To Know

So-called ‘gay conversion therapy’ is a discredited practice—usually involving talk-based counseling, behavioral techniques, or religious interventions—aimed at trying to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, something every major medical and mental health organization has stated is ineffective, harmful, and unsupported by evidence.

Colorado’s conversion therapy ban is a 2019 state law that prohibits licensed

mental health providers from attempting to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity through any treatment or practice, including talk-based counseling.

The petitioner, Colorado therapist Kaley Chiles, argues that the state has unlawfully restricted her interactions with clients.

Chiles wants the Supreme Court to let her talk with her young clients about sexuality and gender in the way she believes is right—even if the state considers those conversations harmful—and to stop Colorado from telling her certain topics or viewpoints are off-limits in her counseling sessions.

In her petition, her attorneys describe her as a “licensed counselor who helps people by talking with them,” claiming the ban prohibits “consensual conversations based on the viewpoints they express.”

José Salazar, the head of the state agency responsible for enforcing Colorado’s 2019 ban on conversion therapy for minors—representing the State of Colorado—wants to keep the law in place, arguing the state must be able to stop practices it considers medically unsafe, harmful, and outside accepted professional standards.

The case was argued before the Supreme Court on October 7, and now sits with the justices, with a ruling expected later in the term.

The outcome could determine whether states retain broad discretion to regulate professional conduct involving minors—or whether such regulations must yield to a more expansive view of the First Amendment.

Arguments For The Petitioner (Chiles/ADF)

Chiles’s counsel, Jim Campbell of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), told Newsweek that the government “has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors,” adding that “Colorado’s law harms these young people by depriving them of caring and compassionate conversations with a counselor who helps them pursue the goals they desire.”

ADF argues the law discriminates on the basis of viewpoint.

According to Campbell, the ban “forbids counselors like Kaley Chiles from helping minors pursue state-disfavored goals on issues of gender and sexuality [by] banning voluntary conversations, censoring widely held views on debated moral, religious and scientific questions.”

ADF senior counsel Jonathan Scruggs framed the issue similarly, saying: “All who choose to live consistent with their biological sex are entitled to the help of counselors like Kaley as they work through that process,” adding that he hopes the Court “will rule on the side of free speech.”

Arguments For The State (Salazar/Colorado)

Colorado defends its 2019 law as a necessary health care regulation grounded in longstanding medical consensus.

Attorney General Phil Weiser told Newsweek: “In Colorado, we are committed to protecting professional standards of care so that no one suffers unscientific and harmful so-called gay conversion therapy. Colorado’s judgment on this is the humane, smart, and appropriate policy and we’re committed to defending it.”

Weiser added: “No amount of talk, pressure, or shaming can make a gay person not gay, or a transgender person not transgender. Licensed therapists shouldn’t be able to abuse their position of trust to push an agenda that causes long-lasting harm to kids and families.”

Scientific And Medical Context

Supporters of the ban cite extensive research.

A 2020 Trevor Project study found that minors who underwent conversion therapy were “more than twice as likely to have reported suicide attempts and more than 2.5 times as likely to report multiple suicide attempts compared to those who did not.”

Casey Pick of The Trevor Project said the law “protects young people … from dangerous, discredited practices that have been proven to cause harm and increase suicide risk,” adding that licensed providers “should not abuse the trust placed in them to subject minors to practices that have been rejected by every medical and mental health association in the country.”

Key Moments From Oral Argument

During oral argument, several justices pressed the state on whether the ban targets speech or conduct.

Justice Samuel Alito asked Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson whether medical consensus has ever been “taken over by ideology” and whether that would trigger First Amendment scrutiny.

Stevenson replied she had “no facts about that in this case,” and argued that “a health care provider cannot be free to violate the standard of care just because they are using words.”

Expert Religious, Legal Analysis And Broader Implications

n a series of exclusive interviews with Newsweek, scholars warned that the Court’s decision could extend far beyond Colorado.

USC law professor David Cruz told Newsweek it is “hard to see how the Supreme Court could interpret the First Amendment to stringently regulate mental health practices carried out through speech without endangering the constitutionality of all practice of psychotherapy.”

The “strict scrutiny” standard Chiles seeks, he said, “could invalidate the use of most professional standards” that govern licensed providers.

University of Cincinnati law professor Ryan Thoreson noted the Court has been “consistently solicitous toward free speech and religious exercise claims brought by conservative litigants, even when those claims undermine longstanding laws that protect LGBT people from discrimination and harm.”

Andrew Seidel, Vice President at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Chiles v. Salazar reflects a broader shift in how the Court is approaching conflicts between religious liberty claims and protections for vulnerable groups.

“To simplify: conversion therapy practices harm children. Colorado ended it because of that harm,” he said. “In the U.S., Christian nationalist legal outfits like Alliance Defending Freedom are trying to argue that religious freedom and free speech require reinstating that harmful practice. But religious freedom has never been an excuse to harm others. These groups are trying to turn that shield into a sword.”

Seidel added that the Court has been “focusing only on the rights of the Christians bringing these cases while ignoring everyone else’s rights—like the kids being harmed.”

Professor John Culhane of Delaware Law School said the ruling could determine how states regulate mental health care nationwide.

“If the Court accepts the argument that this is ‘speech’ rather than professional conduct, it’s hard to see how any regulation of mental health practices carried out through talk could survive,” he said. “That would endanger the constitutionality of the entire practice of psychotherapy.”

Both scholars agree the Court’s reasoning could influence future decisions on other contested areas of youth health care, including gender-affirming treatments.

Jennifer C. Pizer, Senior Director of Strategic Initiatives at Lambda Legal, told Newsweek that Chiles v. Salazar is part of a broader legal campaign attempting to use the First Amendment “as a deregulatory weapon against the basic safeguards that protect patients.”

“Conversion therapy is not health care—it is a long-discredited practice rejected by every major medical association,” Pizer said.

“Framing this as a ‘speech’ case ignores the reality that licensed professionals have ethical duties. The First Amendment has never guaranteed a right to provide harmful or fraudulent treatment under the guise of counseling.”

Pizer added that a ruling for Chiles could “invite medical misinformation into clinical settings” by weakening the ability of states to enforce professional standards.

Reverend Fred Davie, a civil rights advocate, former vice chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and a leader at Union Theological Seminary, said the case highlights how religious language is increasingly invoked to justify practices that mainstream faith leaders reject.

“For far too long, some have twisted scripture to legitimize harmful practices against LGBTQ+ people, including conversion therapy,” Davie told Newsweek. “Nothing in Christian teaching requires inflicting psychological harm on young people. It is morally urgent that the Court recognize the difference between genuine religious expression and the misuse of religion as a tool to endanger children.”

Davie said faith communities nationwide “overwhelmingly repudiate” the idea that religion can excuse what medical experts deem unsafe.

What People Are Saying

Tara McKay, Director, LGBTQ+ Policy Lab at Vanderbilt said: “There are so many other things tied up into these cases that we kind of overlook because we’re focused very strongly on the topic area, which is conversion therapy and LGBTQ health … which I obviously think is phenomenally important, but the cases themselves are about so much more than this, and have so many more implications.”

Ana Builes, Appellate Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center said: “Based on the overwhelming scientific and professional consensus that trying to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity can cause them serious harm … The First Amendment does not prohibit states from protecting its residents through this sort of regulation simply because the medical treatment that mental health professionals provide is done through speech.”

Jonathan Scruggs, Senior Counsel & VP of Litigation Strategy, ADF told Newsweek: “We hope the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the side of free speech and allow counselors like Kaley to work with her clients without the government mandating goals it prefers.”

What Happens Next

The Supreme Court has finished hearing Chiles v. Salazar and is now deliberating privately, with a decision expected later in the term, likely by June 2026.

No further arguments or filings are anticipated.

The justices must determine whether Colorado’s ban on gay conversion therapy for minors is a permissible regulation of professional conduct or an unconstitutional restriction on speech, a choice that will shape how broadly states can regulate licensed mental health providers.

The ruling could either reaffirm state authority to curb practices deemed harmful to minors or undermine similar laws in more than 20 states by expanding First Amendment protections for counselors.