Therapist Kaley Chiles is taking Colorado to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the state’s ban on certain types of talk therapy for minors violates free speech rights. The case could impact similar laws in 20 states and rekindle national debates over parental rights, gender ideology, and professional freedom.
Key Facts:
- Therapist Kaley Chiles is challenging Colorado’s ban on talk therapy that discourages same-sex attraction or gender transition in minors.
- More than 50 amicus briefs were filed, including support from religious groups, free speech scholars, and detransitioners.
- Even a libertarian legal group, the Institute for Justice, criticized Chiles’ legal approach for potentially damaging broader free speech protections.
- Critics argue the Colorado law criminalizes a wide range of speech, including therapists discussing biological sex or discouraging gender transitions.
- The case adds to a series of legal battles over professional speech and may influence similar laws in 20 other states.
The Rest of The Story:
Chiles’ case challenges a Colorado law that bans therapy for minors if it doesn’t affirm same-sex attraction or gender identity.
Her legal team says this law censors therapists and violates the First Amendment.
Over 50 briefs were filed with the Court, including from medical professionals, religious groups, and constitutional scholars.
The case is part of a broader legal pattern in Colorado, which has repeatedly been at the center of culture war litigation.
Past losses include the famous Jack Phillips and Lorie Smith free speech cases.
The law’s supporters say it protects children, while opponents argue it tramples parental rights and punishes certain beliefs.
That's the kind of counseling Kaley Chiles would like to provide.
As a counselor in Colorado, Kaley has a heart for kids struggling with gender dysphoria. She knows what the HHS report shows—that giving children body-altering drugs and surgeries lacks scientific support and is a… pic.twitter.com/sWwu50Vf9U
— Kristen Waggoner (@KristenWaggoner) May 1, 2025
The Institute for Justice, usually aligned with free speech causes, warned the Court that Chiles’ “split-the-difference” argument could weaken other occupational speech protections.
In contrast, pro-life, religious, and detransitioner groups say Colorado’s law unfairly brands talk therapy as harmful while endorsing only one view of sexuality and gender.
Commentary:
This case goes beyond Colorado.
It tests whether states can force licensed professionals to echo a government-approved ideology—or risk losing their license.
At its heart, this is about free speech and whether the state can dictate what a therapist may say to a minor.
Chiles isn’t asking to perform abuse or coercion.
She wants the ability to speak openly with patients who seek help reconciling their beliefs with their feelings.
That’s not conversion therapy—it’s counseling.
And banning that kind of conversation doesn’t protect children; it silences professionals and limits parental choice.
If Colorado’s law stands, where does it end?
Could states ban pastors from counseling minors on sexuality?
What about teachers or medical professionals who privately dissent from prevailing norms?
This isn’t just about therapy—it’s about the government’s growing role in defining acceptable speech.
Parents should know what kind of care their child is receiving.
But that responsibility belongs to the family, not the state.
If a parent seeks out a therapist who shares their values, why should the government get in the way?
The Court must weigh whether banning non-affirming therapy is a necessary public good or unconstitutional censorship.
There’s a big difference between protecting minors from abuse and criminalizing ideas some don’t like.
Free societies protect even unpopular speech.
Supporters of the law claim a professional consensus, but consensus doesn’t equal truth.
The government once labeled homosexuality a disorder.
Today’s dogma might be tomorrow’s mistake.
Courts must ensure that laws don’t freeze debate or shut down dissent.
Ultimately, this case will reveal whether professional speech enjoys real First Amendment protection—or whether it is subject to the whims of state-approved ideology.
The Bottom Line:
Kaley Chiles’ lawsuit against Colorado challenges more than a state law—it questions whether states can muzzle professionals for refusing to follow ideological trends.
The Supreme Court’s decision could reshape how far free speech protections extend in counseling and other licensed professions.
This ruling will not only impact therapists—it may redefine how much control states can exert over what professionals say in private sessions with clients, especially minors.
Read Next
– CBS Getting Pummeled on Social Media for Promoting ‘No Kings’ Protest Gear Ahead of Anti-Trump Rallies
– Fetterman Blasts His Own Party: You’ve Sided with Hamas
– Unruly Masked Protesters Trap ICE Officers and Detainees Inside Seattle Federal Building
– Why California Stores Keep Closing: Retail Theft Up 32% Since 2021 Despite “Crackdowns”
