Conservative Supreme Court justices appear skeptical of Colorado's ban on harmful 'conversion therapy'

"The case stems from a challenge brought by Kaley Chiles, a Colorado therapist represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, an anti- LGBTQ+ legal advocacy group. Chiles argues that Colorado's 2019 law prohibiting licensed mental-health professionals from attempting to change a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity restricts her ability to speak freely with clients. Twenty-five states have laws that ban use of the discredited practice on minors."

"During arguments, several conservative justices questioned whether talk-based counseling qualifies as protected expression. Justice Neil Gorsuch pressed Stevenson on the law's text, and Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked how Colorado distinguishes between "speech-only" therapy and medical treatment involving medication. Justice Clarence Thomas suggested the state's reasoning had shifted. Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked whether Chiles faced any real threat of prosecution, noting that the state has not enforced the law against her or anyone else."

Chiles v. Salazar raises whether states may prohibit licensed therapists from attempting to change minors' sexual orientation or gender identity or whether such bans violate the First Amendment. The challenge was brought by Colorado therapist Kaley Chiles, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, against Colorado's 2019 law restricting licensed mental-health professionals from those practices. Chiles's lawyers argue the law censors voluntary counselor-client conversations and prevents helping minors pursue state-disfavored moral, religious, or scientific goals. Colorado contends the law protects minors from harmful, discredited practices and regulates professional conduct rather than speech. Justices probed protections for talk-based counseling and distinctions between speech-only therapy and medical treatment, and whether any enforcement threat exists.

Read at Advocate.com