Supreme Court Rules Against Colorado’s Counseling Restrictions

Can the government tell therapists what they can say to clients in private? On March 31, the U.S. Supreme Court decisively answered “No” in an 8-1 ruling. However, the fact that eight justices voted together hints at how narrowly focused the decision was.

Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion made clear that the case was a specific one, blocking the application of state law as it related to therapists working with their patients. So, while it’s a significant win, it doesn’t really open the floodgates for broader interpretations.

The First Amendment clearly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.” Normally, restrictions on free speech are held to strict scrutiny, meaning they face rigorous examination. But when Kaley Chiles challenged Colorado’s law, which barred counselors from providing “conversion therapy” to minors, lower courts employed a much less demanding standard—rational basis review. This effectively tilted the playing field in the state’s favor.

Chiles, a licensed mental-health counselor from Colorado Springs, has spent her career helping clients deal with issues like addiction, trauma, and more. She also works with those facing eating disorders, gender dysphoria, and sexuality-related concerns.

As a Christian, her approach to counseling is influenced by her faith. She provides support to clients grappling with same-sex attraction or questions about their gender identity, but she doesn’t impose her beliefs on them. Justice Gorsuch emphasized that Chiles allows her patients to guide their own treatment paths.

Despite her experience, Chiles faced pushback from the state legislature. In 2019, Colorado passed HB19-1129, which banned conversion therapy for minors, defining it broadly to encompass attempts to change sexual orientation or behaviors.

Since then, Chiles had to tread carefully in conversations with minors, avoiding discussions that could be interpreted as conversion therapy, which limited her practice significantly.

In September 2022, she contested Colorado’s law, arguing it violated her First Amendment rights. However, she lost in district court.

Chiles appealed to the Tenth Circuit, but again faced defeat. The court ruled that her practice amounted to professional conduct rather than free speech. Thus, it applied rational basis review, determining that the law served legitimate government interests, like protecting minors.

Judge Harris Hartz dissented vigorously, highlighting that talk therapy is indeed protected speech and questioning whether the law favored one viewpoint over another, alluding to historical inconsistencies in mental health diagnoses.

Unfazed, Chiles went to the Supreme Court, where oral arguments featured contentious discussions about whether rational-basis review was suitable. Justice Jackson questioned whether Chiles’ work really fell under free speech, likening it to medicine prescriptions. Chiles’ attorney responded that any speech should not be relabeled as conduct simply to silence certain viewpoints.

Concerns about viewpoint discrimination were raised by Justices Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Thomas, especially since the law allows counseling that supports a minor’s identity while prohibiting counseling that challenges or redirects it. The state defended its position, claiming the law aims to uphold professional standards and protect potentially harmful or ineffective treatments.

In the end, the deliberations resulted in Justice Jackson standing alone in dissent. Gorsuch’s majority opinion determined that Colorado’s law exemplified viewpoint discrimination, a conclusion echoed by Justice Kagan in a brief concurrence.

However, the practical implications of this ruling are somewhat limited. Colorado’s law will still be in effect, but mental health professionals won’t face legal repercussions when discussing gender or sexuality with consenting clients.

Nonetheless, the door isn’t fully closed. Gorsuch noted that this ruling was specifically about “talk therapy,” leaving room for potential changes in other types of treatments. Kagan’s concurrence suggested that state lawmakers might consider creating a new law that avoids the flaws found in Colorado’s current legislation. Other states may look to follow this guidance in crafting similar measures.

So while we can appreciate the Supreme Court’s decision for what it accomplishes, it feels like there’s more work to be done. The strong majority’s recognition of Colorado’s clear viewpoint discrimination is encouraging, but it’s likely not the end of discussions around state-approved approaches to gender ideology.