Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026)

Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. 627 (2026) is a U.S. Supreme Court case regarding a Colorado state ban on conversion therapy. Specifically, Colo. Rev. Stat. §12–245–224(1)(t)(V) prohibits licensed mental health counselors in the State of Colorado from engaging in conversion therapy with a minor. 

The petitioner Kaley Chiles, a licensed mental health counselor in the State of Colorado, filed suit in federal court seeking an injunction that would prohibit enforcement of the conversion therapy ban. Chiles did not contend that the statute had no valid applications. Instead, Chiles argued that, as applied to her practice of talk therapy, the statute violated her First Amendment right to engage in protected speech with her clients. Moreover, that Colorado law permits licensed mental health counselors to encourage a client undergoing gender transition, but prohibits speaking to clients in order to “realign their identity with sex.”

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado found that Chiles had standing, yet denied the injunction. The Court reasoned that since the law regulated professional conduct and any regulation on speech was incidental, it received rational basis review. In applying rational-basis review, the district court concluded that Colorado had demonstrated a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest and therefore denied the requested injunction. Chiles appealed, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling. 

On a writ of certiorari, the issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether Colorado's law, as applied to Chiles' talk therapy practice, should be reviewed under rational basis review or strict scrutiny. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch began with an overview of the Court’s precedent on the First Amendment. The First Amendment requires that laws regulating speech based on subject matter receive strict scrutiny. Laws that discriminate against a particular viewpoint are even more offensive to the First Amendment, and nearly always fail constitutional muster. In discussing professional speech, the Court recognized two categories identified in National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755 (2018) that generally do not trigger strict scrutiny:

  1. Laws that “require speakers to disclose only factual, noncontroversial information in commercial speech.” 
  2. Laws that regulate “conduct in ways that incidentally sweep in speech.” 

Justice Gorsuch then applied these principles to the Colorado ban on conversion therapy. The majority held that the Colorado law was not only a content-based restriction on speech, but also viewpoint discrimination. As applied to Chiles, the law allowed her to support and facilitate identity exploration for a client undergoing gender transition; yet, prohibited Chiles from offering the same assistance to a client who sought help in unwanted feelings regarding their sexual orientation or gender identity. Having determined that the law is an example of viewpoint discrimination, the Court rejected both exceptions to the requirement that such laws receive strict scrutiny. While the law clearly did not fit into the “commercial speech” exception, it was argued that the law regulated conduct and only incidentally burdened speech. In response, the Court distinguished the aversive physical interventions that Colorado could prohibit in this context from the speech in which Chiles engaged. Chiles' speech does not become conduct merely because it can be described as a "treatment" or a "therapeutic modality."

Lastly, citing National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755 (2018), the Court held that simply because the restriction only applies to licensed mental health counselors did not lower the level of scrutiny required. Since the Colorado law banning conversion therapy constituted viewpoint discrimination, and no recognized exception justified a lower level of review, the Court held that strict scrutiny, and not rational-basis review, applied. Therefore, the Court reversed the judgment and remanded this case for further proceedings under the correct level of scrutiny. 

Topics

Geographical location

Keywords

Year

  • 2026

External URL

Court

Type

Jurisdiction