The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a pivotal case regarding Colorado’s controversial law that prohibits licensed counselors from offering therapy aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation. This case, Kaley Chiles v. Patty Salazar et al., raises significant questions about free speech and religious freedom in the counseling profession.
The Supreme Court’s decision to take on this case, announced in an order list earlier this week, has garnered attention from both supporters and opponents of the law. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a legal organization advocating for religious liberty, is representing Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor who challenges the law’s constitutionality. Chiles argues that the law infringes upon her First Amendment rights by censoring her ability to engage in private conversations with clients who seek help regarding their sexual orientation.
Kristen Waggoner, CEO of ADF, expressed her concerns about the implications of the law, stating, "State officials have no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors." Waggoner further criticized the law for limiting the options available to children struggling with issues related to their sexual identity, arguing that it pushes them toward potentially harmful medical interventions rather than allowing for open dialogue and exploration of their feelings.
The background of this case dates back to 2019 when Colorado enacted the Minor Conversion Therapy Law, aimed at banning what critics label "gay conversion therapy" for minors. Advocates for the law, including Daniel Ramos, executive director of One Colorado, argue that it is a crucial step in protecting LGBTQ youth from harmful practices. Ramos stated, "No young person should ever be shamed by a mental health professional into thinking that who they are is wrong."
Chiles filed her legal challenge against the law in September 2022, asserting that it violates both the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. However, a three-judge panel from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against her in a 2-1 decision, upholding the law. The majority opinion, penned by Circuit Judge Veronica Rossman, maintained that the law does not infringe on Chiles’ freedom of expression, as it regulates the types of treatments she can provide as a licensed professional.
The dissenting opinion from Circuit Judge Harris Hartz raised concerns about why the majority would consider professional speech to have lesser First Amendment protections than other forms of speech. Hartz argued that the court’s ruling could set a troubling precedent for the treatment of professional speech in general.
With the Supreme Court’s agreement to hear the case, the outcome could have far-reaching implications for counselors across the nation, particularly those who hold religious beliefs that inform their practice. The ADF has filed a petition urging the high court to clarify the application of the First Amendment in counseling settings, emphasizing the importance of protecting both the rights of counselors and the interests of their clients.
As this case progresses, it will undoubtedly be a focal point in the ongoing discussion about the intersection of faith, freedom of speech, and mental health care in America. The Supreme Court’s ruling could redefine the boundaries of what counselors can discuss with their clients, especially in sensitive areas related to sexual orientation and identity.
For those interested in following this case and its implications for religious freedom and free speech, updates will be available through various legal and news platforms, including Alliance Defending Freedom and major news outlets covering the Supreme Court’s activities. This high-profile case is poised to stir significant debate and could influence similar laws across the country.