WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a sweeping First Amendment decision issued March 31, the United States Supreme Court removed a virtual gag on free speech which the state of Colorado had imposed on Christian counselors when talking to minors about their sexuality.
In Chiles v. Salazar, the court held that Colorado’s ban on so-called “conversion therapy,” as applied to talk therapy by licensed counselors, is a content- and viewpoint-based restriction on speech that must satisfy strict scrutiny under the First Amendment. The state failed to meet that high bar, and thus its law was declared unconstitutional.
Kaley Chiles and her husband, James, with Mike Whitehead in Washington, DC. (Photo courtesy of Mike Whitehead.)
The 8–1 decision, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, represents a significant victory for free speech, religious liberty, and the rights of professionals to engage in voluntary, client-directed conversations without government interference.
Missouri implications and the Bury case
The Chiles decision has immediate implications beyond Colorado—including within the state of Missouri.
Attorneys Mike and Jon Whitehead, allied attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), are currently handling a similar case against Jackson County and the City of Kansas City, Mo., challenging local ordinances that restrict counseling conversations with minors.
In that case—Bury, et al. v. Jackson County, et. al—a federal district court ruled against the counselors, holding that the ordinances regulate professional conduct rather than speech. U.S. District Judge Ketchmark concluded that the law governs the “practice of therapy,” not merely speech. The Bury case is still pending before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Chiles decision directly calls that reasoning into question.
“This is a landmark ruling that respects the First Amendment inside the counseling office,” said attorney Jonathan Whitehead, who filed an amicus brief in the Chiles case on behalf of scholars. “The Court made clear that government cannot silence an on-going scientific debate about issues of human sexual feelings and change-oriented talk therapy.”
Whitehead added, “When a client voluntarily seeks guidance consistent with their own religious beliefs and goals, the Constitution protects the counselor’s ability to speak truthfully and fully. That principle applies just as strongly in Missouri as it does in Colorado.”
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals will have to decide how the Chiles case applies to the Missouri case and may send the case back to the Kansas City trial court for a separate ruling.
Digging deeper: What the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Chiles
Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor in Colorado, challenged a 2019 state law that prohibited licensed counselors from engaging in conversations with minors that seek to reduce or change same-sex attraction or gender identity, while allowing counseling that affirms those identities.
Chiles argued that the law functioned as a “gag rule,” forbidding her from discussing certain viewpoints with clients who voluntarily sought her help.
The Supreme Court agreed.
The Court held that Colorado’s law, as applied to Chiles, regulates speech—not just conduct—and does so based on the viewpoint of the counselor. The law allows counselors to affirm a minor client’s sexual orientation or gender identity but prohibits them from discussing alternatives or helping clients pursue different goals.
“Colorado’s law does not just regulate the content of Ms. Chiles’s speech,” Justice Gorsuch wrote. “It goes a step further, prescribing what views she may and may not express.”
Because viewpoint discrimination by government is considered an “egregious” violation of the First Amendment, the court ruled that the lower courts erred in applying only a “rational basis” test in their review. Laws that discriminate on viewpoint must meet the “strict scrutiny” test of “compelling government interest, narrowly tailored” to prevent burdening constitutional rights.
Rejecting the “professional conduct” Argument
Both the federal district court and the 10th circuit court had upheld the law, reasoning that it regulated professional conduct rather than speech.
The Supreme Court rejected that argument.
The court emphasized that talk therapy consists entirely of speech and cannot be reclassified as “conduct” simply because it occurs in a professional setting.
“Her speech does not become conduct just because the state may call it that,” the court explained.
The decision builds on prior precedent rejecting the notion that “professional speech” is entitled to diminished constitutional protection.
The majority opinion for the court said: “We do not doubt that the question ‘how best to help minors’ struggling with issues of gender identity or sexual orientation is presently a subject of ‘fierce public debate.’ But Colorado’s law addressing conversion therapy does not just ban physical interventions. In cases like this, it censors speech based on viewpoint. Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety. Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same. But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth. However well-intentioned, any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an ‘egregious’ assault on both of those commitments.”
Concurring and dissenting views
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, concurred in the judgment, emphasizing that viewpoint discrimination is the central constitutional defect in the Colorado law.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing that states have long regulated the medical profession and should be permitted to restrict what she characterized as harmful treatment practices.
She warned that the majority’s approach could limit states’ ability to regulate medical care and protect minors. The Court’s decision opens “a dangerous can of worms,” she warned.
Broader impact
The ruling resolves a long-standing conflict among federal courts over whether counseling regulations should be treated as speech or conduct.
By confirming that talk therapy is protected speech—and that viewpoint discrimination is unconstitutional—the Supreme Court has placed significant limits on state and local efforts to regulate counseling conversations. Over 22 states and over 100 local governments have similar bans or restrictions on licensed counselor talk therapy with minors regarding sexuality.
For churches, ministries, and Christian counselors, the decision represents a major affirmation that faith-based perspectives may be expressed freely in counseling relationships—without fear of government censorship.
Comment from Jim Campbell, Alliance Defending Freedom Chief Legal Counsel
“Kids deserve real help affirming that their bodies are not a mistake and that they are wonderfully made. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today is a significant win for free speech, common sense, and families desperate to help their children,” said ADF Chief Legal Counsel Jim Campbell, who argued before the court in October. “States cannot silence voluntary conversations that help young people seeking to grow comfortable with their bodies.”
As of late March 2026, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has secured 17 direct Supreme Court victories since 2011, including Chiles v. Salazar. Overall, ADF has played a role in 83 total Supreme Court victories since its founding in 1994. Mike Whitehead has been an allied attorney and advisory board member with ADF since its founding. His son Jon was a Blackstone Fellow and allied attorney since his graduation from Harvard Law School in 2004.
Comment from Kaley Chiles, Christian counselor
“When my young clients come to me for counsel, they often want to discuss issues of gender and sexuality. I look forward to being able to help them when they choose the goal of growing comfortable with their bodies,” Chiles said. “Counselors walking alongside these young people shouldn’t be limited to promoting state-approved goals like gender transition, which often leads to harmful drugs and surgeries. The Supreme Court’s ruling is a victory for counselors and, more importantly, kids and families everywhere.”
Michael K. Whitehead and Jonathan Whitehead practice law in Lee’s Summit, Missouri and often serve as allied attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom. Mike serves on the Board of Directors for ADF. The personal views expressed are their own.