Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case on Colorado’s Counseling Censorship Law
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take up an important case over the constitutionality of Colorado’s counseling censorship law that bans so-called “conversion therapy.”
Kaley Chiles is a Christian and licensed professional counselor in Colorado who helps her clients with myriad issues – including unwanted sexual identity confusion and same-sex attraction.
However, Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law, enacted in 2019, censors her speech and prohibits her from helping minor clients struggling with these issues live according to a biblical sexual ethic. The law prevents her from providing her clients with simple talk therapy.
As a result, Chiles filed a lawsuit against Colorado and is being represented by attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).
In September 2024, a three-judge panel on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 against Chiles. After that ruling, Chiles petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take up her case, which it has agreed to do.
The question the Supreme Court will consider is:
After the court decided to take up Chiles’ case, the Daily Citizen spoke with Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel at First Liberty Institute, who said that laws like Colorado’s essentially create a fealty test for Christian counselors.
“There’s so many counselors out there who are very scared because [these laws] have become a sort of loyalty test – are you loyal to the left?” Sasser pointed out. “If you are, then you get to continue to be a counselor; if you’re not, then we’re going to run you out of business.”
Speaking on behalf of Christian counselors, Sasser added,
Kristen Waggoner, President, CEO and General Counsel of ADF, issued a statement on Monday saying ADF is eager to defend Chiles in front of the Supreme Court.
“The government has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors, nor should a counselor be used as a tool to impose the government’s biased views on her clients,” Waggoner said, adding,
In 2023, the Supreme Court declined to take up a similar case over Washington state’s counseling censorship law. At the time, Justices Kavanaugh, Thomas and Alito dissented from the court’s decision.
It takes the votes of four justices for the Supreme Court to “grant certiorari” and take up a case. This means now, at least one justice has changed their mind and agreed the court should consider whether such censorship laws are constitutional.
In his dissent at the time, Justice Thomas wrote, “This petition asks us to consider whether Washington can censor counselors who help minors accept their biological sex. Because this question has divided the Courts of Appeals and strikes at the heart of the First Amendment, I would grant review.”
Justice Thomas presciently said that he had “no doubt that the issue [the case] presents will come before the court again.”
“When it does,” the justice added, “the Court should do what it should have done here: grant certiorari to consider what the First Amendment requires.”
Thankfully, the Supreme Court has now agreed to do exactly that.
According to the Movement Advancement Project – a pro-LGBT non-profit organization – 23 states and Washington D.C. have counseling censorship laws in place.
Our nation’s federal courts of appeal have split on whether states can censor the speech of counselors. While the 11th Circuit has decided that such laws are unconstitutional, the 3rd Circuit, 9th Circuit and 10th Circuit have reached the opposite conclusion.
This will be the first time our nation’s highest court considers the veracity of laws like Colorado’s. Whenever our nation’s federal appellate courts divide on a particular constitutional question, creating a “circuit split,” the Supreme Court often gets involved to ensure a uniform rule of law nationwide.
Sasser told us anytime someone resorts to censorship to advance their position, he knows that “their position is not true, and that the person who’s advancing it suspects that it’s not true.”
“Otherwise, why do they need censorship? What do they care about competing ideas?” Sasser asked. “The only people who have to do censorship are people who think that what they’re advancing is not true.”
All individuals struggling with unwanted homosexuality or sexual identity confusion deserve the right to seek help from caring counselors who can help them live according to their goals and values. No state should deny them the help they are seeking.
Please be in prayer for the ADF attorneys and the Supreme Court justices as they consider this case. Also, please pray for Kaley Chiles as her case is considered by the court.
The Daily Citizen will keep you updated on important developments in the case.
The case is Chiles v. Salazar.
If you or someone you know is struggling with homosexuality or transgenderism, Focus on the Family offers a one-time complimentary consultation with our ministry’s professionally trained counseling staff. The consultation is free due to generous donor support.
To reach Focus on the Family’s counseling service by phone, call 1-800-A-Family (232-6459) weekdays 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (Mountain Time). Please be prepared to leave your contact information for a counselor or chaplain to return a call to you as soon as possible. Alternatively, you can fill out our Counseling Consultation Request Form.
We also offer local referrals for licensed counselors who align with the mission and values of Focus on the Family.
Related articles and resources:
Counseling Consultation & Referrals
Counseling for Sexual Identity Concerns: A measured, careful, and compassionate approach
Colorado Counselor Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Free Speech Case
Appeals Court Permits Colorado’s Counseling Censorship Law to Stand
Supreme Court Declines to Hear Counseling Censorship Case
Photo from Shutterstock.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
