Chiles v. Salazar | Case No. 24-539 | Oral Argument Date: 10/7/25 | Docket Link: Here

Question Presented: Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Clause.

Other Referenced Episodes:

• August 19 – Road Work Ahead: How Four 2024 Cases May Be Reshaping First Amendment Scrutiny | Here

Overview

This episode examines one of the most anticipated cases of the October 2025 Supreme Court term - a First Amendment challenge to Colorado's "conversion therapy" ban that has generated over 50 amicus briefs and sits at the intersection of free speech, parental rights, LGBTQ issues, and professional regulation.

Roadmap

Opening: A Constitutional Perfect Storm

• October 7th, 2025 oral argument date
• Over 50 amicus briefs filed (compared to 7 for most cases)
• Intersection of hot-button topics: parental rights, LGBTQ issues, religious freedom, professional regulation

Background: The Players and the Law

• Kaley Chiles: Licensed counselor in Colorado Springs at Deeper Stories Counseling
• Christian counselor using "client-directed" approach with speech-only methods
• Colorado's 2019 law banning "conversion therapy" for minors
• Penalties: fines up to $5,000, license suspension or revocation

Constitutional Framework: The First Amendment Text

• "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech"
• Extension to state governments through Fourteenth Amendment
• The simplicity of "no law" language

Procedural History: The Court Journey

• 2022: Chiles filed pre-enforcement challenge
• District court denied preliminary injunction using rational basis review
• Tenth Circuit affirmed in divided panel decision
• Judge Hartz's "scathing dissent" calling majority approach "remarkable" and "contrary" to precedent

The Central Constitutional Question

• Speech versus conduct: When does professional speech become conduct that can be regulated?
• Level of scrutiny determines case outcome
• Three-tiered analysis: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny

Understanding Scrutiny Levels: The Road Analogy

• Rational basis: Highway with minimal obstacles
• Intermediate scrutiny: Busy road with stop signs and traffic lights
• Strict scrutiny: Road closure - "fatal in fact" for government

Competing Legal Frameworks

Chiles's Arguments (Strict Scrutiny)

• Content-based discrimination: "You can help with binge eating, but not sexual orientation behaviors"
• Viewpoint-based discrimination: "Support gender transition but forbid comfort with biological body"
• Speech-only counseling deserves full First Amendment protection

Colorado's Arguments (Rational Basis)

• Professional healthcare treatment regulation, not speech restriction
• Traditional state authority over professional standards
• "Professional healthcare treatment that happens to involve words"

Key Supreme Court Precedents Battle

National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra (NIFLA) (2018)

• Chiles interpretation: Professional speech gets full First Amendment protection
• Colorado interpretation: States can prohibit substandard treatment involving words

Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015)

• Content-based restrictions trigger strict scrutiny
• Foundation for Chiles's discrimination arguments

The Evidence Battle

• Colorado's medical organization statements vs. lack of specific studies
• Colorado counsel's concession: No studies on "talk therapy by licensed counselor with willing minor"
• Recent developments: Cass Review from UK, new HHS reports

Narrow Tailoring Problems

• Overinclusive: Bans all counseling conversations on these topics
• Underinclusive: Only applies to licensed professionals, not life coaches or religious counselors
• Fatal inconsistency under strict scrutiny

Broader Implications

If Chiles Wins

• Expanded protection for professional speech generally
• Limits on state regulation of counselor-client conversations
• Potential impact on other professional speech regulations

If Colorado Wins

• Broader state authority to regulate professional conversations
• Precedent for public health rationales overriding speech concerns
• Framework for regulating other controversial therapeutic approaches

Cultural and Legal Tensions

• Expertise versus individual choice
• Regulatory authority versus family autonomy
• Professional consensus versus personal beliefs

Looking Ahead to October 7th Oral Arguments

• Watch for justices' reaction to speech versus conduct framing
• Evidence questions: How much proof does Colorado need?
• Narrow tailoring challenges about unlicensed practitioners
• Potential references to recent Court skepticism of professional speech restrictions

Key Legal Concepts Explained

• Content-based vs. viewpoint-based discrimination
• Professional speech doctrine
• Pre-enforcement challenges
• Strict scrutiny analysis
• Constitutional avoidance principles