Chiles v. Salazar could also resolve case on ‘counseling censorship’ in Jackson County, Mo.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Mike and Jon Whitehead practice law in Lee’s Summit, Mo. Mike serves on the Board of Directors for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). Mike and Jon volunteer as allied attorneys with ADF. The opinions in this article are their own.
Washington, DC – On Tuesday, Oct. 7, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Chiles v. Salazar, a case that strikes at the heart of free speech, religious liberty, and the proper boundaries of government regulation in mental health. Counselor Kaley Chiles wants to help young people distressed about their gender achieve their chosen goal to grow comfortable with their bodies and avoid harmful drugs and procedures. But a Colorado law forbids her from doing so, and Attorney General Salazar wants to enforce the “gag rule.”
What’s at Stake
Kaley Chiles is a licensed counselor in Colorado who talks with clients about various issues, including gender identity and sexual orientation. Kaley sees her work as an outpouring of her Christian faith, and numerous clients come to her because they share her religious beliefs. These clients believe that their lives will be more fulfilling if aligned with the teachings of their faith.
But, in 2019, Colorado enacted a law banning counselors from speaking certain views about gender and sexuality to their clients under the age of 18. That law tells counselors that they may not speak messages during counseling conversations to help young people who want to work through their gender dysphoria by growing more comfortable with their biological sex. But the law allows counselors to encourage those kids to reject their biological sex. That is an unconstitutional restriction on private counseling conversations. Any counselor who speaks the forbidden messages could face steep penalties—up to $5,000 for each violation, possible suspension from practice, and even revocation of the counselor’s license.
Chiles contends the law censors her speech and infringes on her Free Exercise protections, because it forces her either to refuse certain conversations or to adopt affirming stances she cannot honestly endorse. She frames her counseling as consensual dialogue, rooted in the client’s own “goals, objectives, religious or spiritual beliefs.”
Colorado, by contrast, argues that this law regulates professional conduct, not speech. The State claims it does not punish viewpoints but only proscribes harmful or disfavored “treatment” methods. The Tenth Circuit agreed—holding that counseling is conduct subject to regulation, not protected speech.
If the Court sides with Chiles, it could upend many state or local “conversion therapy” bans by requiring courts to treat counseling as expressive speech—triggering strict scrutiny whenever the government censors viewpoint‑based content. If the Court upholds Colorado, many counselors may be forced to limit or abandon conversations that some clients deeply desire. (My son Jon and I are handling a similar case involving Jackson County and Kansas City “counseling censorship” ordinances, which case is currently on appeal to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Chiles case may resolve the issues in our case, as well.)
The Legal Path & Key Arguments
Lower Court Ruling: The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision against Chiles, emphasizing that the statute regulates professional treatment, and only incidentally affects speech about a particular viewpoint.
Chiles’s Supreme Court Brief: ADF lawyers argue that her counseling is speech, not conduct, and that the ban is a content- and viewpoint-based restriction requiring strict scrutiny. They assert Colorado has offered no compelling justification for suppressing these conversations, and the statute is overbroad and underinclusive (e.g., it allows nonlicensed persons to engage in the same speech the law forbids licensed professionals to use).
Broader Implications: The case touches on the doctrine of “professional speech”—whether licensed counselors lose full First Amendment protection by virtue of their status. If regulated too broadly, state agencies might silence dissenting or minority viewpoints in many helping professions.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and the Appeal Team
Chiles is being represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a public interest law firm with a strong track record in religious‑liberty and free speech cases.
“The government has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors,” said ADF Chief Legal Counsel Jim Campbell, who will argue the case for Kaley. “There is a growing consensus around the world that adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria need love and an opportunity to talk through their struggles and feelings. 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.
“Together with the support of the United States government, 21 states, and dozens of free-speech advocates, health care professionals, and families, we are eager to defend Kaley’s First Amendment right to help kids and families achieve their goals and ensure that government officials don’t impose their ideology on private conversations between counselors and clients,” Campbell added.
Jonathan Whitehead filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of scholars with expertise on sexual orientation issues, supporting Kaley Chiles’ position: https://tinyurl.com/4ddub6r7.
Personal Note & Reflection
It was Oct. 6, 1981, when I first stood in the Supreme Court with my partner James Smart in the case of Widmar v. Vincent, involving Christian students’ right to meet in the student union at UMKC for their Bible study and prayer meetings. Our opponents argued that Bible reading and prayer were not just “speech”—but rather “religious worship,” a more dangerous kind of speech that was not protected by the Free Speech clause, but was prohibited by the Establishment clause. Eight of 9 justices disagreed with UMKC and voted for our clients, the students. And “equal access” was born.
Forty-four years later, on October 7, 2025, I will be back in the Supreme Court to stand with my friends at ADF as they stand with Kaley and her family and friends—some of whom I have known since the days of Widmar. I expect to reminisce about my first trip as a 31-year-old Christian attorney, asking God to keep the doors open for the gospel on college campuses. And now I will pray for God’s kind providence to keep the doors open for the gospel in the counseling room.
