Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, a case challenging Colorado’s law banning licensed counselors from counseling and speaking to minors about certain subjects. The law prohibits counselors from helping young people work through gender dysphoria or other gender-related questions, while at the same time allowing counseling that encourages gender transition.
Kaley Chiles is a licensed counselor who works with minor clients. Many of her clients come to her because of her Christian faith. Kaley, through Alliance Defending Freedom, challenged Colorado’s law as viewpoint discrimination, arguing it silenced her ability to help young people pursue personal goals consistent with their faith and convictions. To make matters worse, the law enforced its one-sided restrictions with steep penalties: fines up to $5,000 per violation, suspension, or even loss of license.
During oral arguments, a majority of justices sharply probed Colorado’s defense, questioning whether the state can label private counseling conversations as mere “conduct” instead of protected speech. The justices also appeared open to concluding that the law is viewpoint discrimination, since it permits counseling in favor of gender transition but bans counseling toward accepting one’s biological sex.
The Court’s decision will determine if states can censor what licensed professionals say in private sessions by calling it “conduct” rather than speech. A ruling for Kaley could affirm that professional speech deserves strong First Amendment protection and could set precedent for how governments regulate the advice and speech of counselors, doctors, lawyers, and other professionals.
Listen to the full argument here: Chiles v. Salazar Oral Argument