() The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case Tuesday brought by a therapist who says a Colorado law that bans her ability to speak to minors about conversion therapy violates her First Amendment right to free speech. 

Chiles v. Salazer could push the bounds of Colorado law and potentially spark a wave of lawsuits on similar laws in over 23 states across the nation that ban the treatment, which aims to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. 

Conversion therapy has been called out by more than two dozen health organizations, including the American Medical Association, which warned of the “significant long-term harm” of the practice. 

At the heart of the case is a Christian therapist who says the law cannot block her right to speak about conversion therapy with her clients. 

What is Colorado’s conversion therapy law? 

Conversion therapy was banned in Colorado in 2019 after a push by medical organizations that highlighted the dangers and inefficacy of the treatment. 

The therapy consists of “aversive” and “nonaversive”  techniques to change sexual orientation. Aversive methods include inducing nausea and paralysis, electric shock therapy, shame-aversion therapy, assertiveness and dating training, according to the American Psychological Association.  

At least 28 medical and psychological professional associations representing more than 1.3 million health care providers wrote a letter in 2023 endorsing the U.S. Joint Statement Against Conversion Efforts. 

An estimated 698,000 LGBTQ+ adults have undergone these efforts, 350,000 as adolescents, the groups say. 

What is Chiles arguing? 

The plaintiff in this case is Kaley Chiles, a Christian counselor in Colorado Springs who is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization. 

Chiles said she serves clients who often seek religiously informed care that aligns with traditional biblical understandings of sexuality and gender. The counselor said that the law has hampered her ability to provide full counseling services in line with her and her clients’ religious convictions.

In 2022, she brought a preenforcement lawsuit against Colorado officials responsible for enforcing the statute.

She argued that she isn’t attempting to “convert” her clients but helping them “with their stated desires and objectives in counseling, which sometimes includes clients seeking to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of harmony with one’s physical body,” according to SCOTUSblog. 

Chiles said the law, which carries fines of $5,000, license suspension or revocation, “interferes with my ability to serve my clients with integrity.”

She argued that the state used the term “conversion therapy” to enforce broad restrictions that violate counselors’ First Amendment rights. 

“Chiles’ counseling conversations are constitutionally protected speech,” her attorneys wrote in court papers. “They communicate messages that clients want to hear as they struggle to address some of the most important issues, moral questions, and feelings they are facing.”

What is the state arguing? 

Colorado says it has a right to regulate licensed professionals to provide a high standard of care for patients and that the First Amendment has never barred their ability to prohibit substandard care, according to Courthouse News.

“The only thing that the law prohibits therapists from doing is performing a treatment that seeks the predetermined outcome of changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity because that treatment is unsafe and ineffective,” the state wrote.

The state requires licensed professional counselors to have a master’s degree from an accredited professional counseling program, and in some cases, therapists also have to have postdegree clinical practice and pass clinical exams, the outlet reported. 

Medical associations stress that accreditation requirements and licensing guidelines require therapists to use evidence-based counseling strategies. 

What did the lower courts decide? 

The district court rejected Chiles’ request to stop Colorado from enforcing the law against her while her challenge proceeded through the courts. The U.S. The Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit upheld that decision. 

What are the implications of this case? 

Ilan Meyer, distinguished senior scholar of public policy at UCLA’s Williams Institute, told that the case holds significant implications for LGBTQ+ youth around the country. 

“To me, the crux of this issue is if you go into a licensed person, you want to get the most up to date information that is consensus among providers, and you’re not going to be able to get it when people who are licensed will offer the type of therapy that is not approved or recommended by mental health professionals,” Meyer, who co-wrote an amicus brief for the case, said. 

“LGBT youth and their families would lose what I think is an important protection, in the sense that parents and young people may reach therapists they would assume to be good therapy when they are not given a kind of therapy that is approved by most professional organizations in the United States.” 

Conversion therapy is not banned nationwide, but it is prohibited or restricted for minors by law in at least 23 states and the District of Columbia, according to the Movement Advancement Project. 

Individuals can still seek conversion therapy but just not from licensed therapists, Meyer notes. 

But Meyer said this ruling could lead to a problematic precedent where these laws will be lifted in other states. 

“I think that it is very likely there are providers right now who are giving this therapy, and I think they face a barrier when they cannot be licensed,” he said. “People still can go to them, but there is a certain protection now, probably a barrier to reaching their client base when they cannot be licensed if people seek a licensed professional.”