The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar on October 7, 2025, a case that will decide whether states can effectively muzzle licensed therapists when their counseling clashes with prevailing cultural fashions. This is not some abstract legal quiz — it is a direct challenge to the First Amendment and to the right of honest counselors to speak freely with vulnerable clients.
Kaley Chiles, a Colorado licensed counselor and practicing Christian, says the state’s law prevents her from offering the candid, faith-informed guidance some families and minors request, and she has challenged the law all the way to the Supreme Court. Her fight was taken up by the Alliance Defending Freedom and centers on whether therapist-client conversations are protected speech or merely professional “conduct” the state can regulate.
Watching the argument, conservatives should be encouraged that several justices pressed Colorado on whether its ban amounts to blatant viewpoint discrimination, permitting affirming therapies while banning counseling aimed at helping a minor reconcile identity with biological sex or faith. The suggestion that government can decide which viewpoints a professional may express in a private counseling room sets a terrifying precedent for free expression.
Colorado’s law purports to ban “conversion therapy” for minors, defined broadly to include efforts to change sexual orientation or gender identity, and similar prohibitions exist in dozens of states. Proponents of the bans frame them as protections against harm, while opponents warn they sweep too broadly and chill ordinary therapeutic conversation between consenting clients and counselors. The Tenth Circuit upheld Colorado’s law below, fueling Chiles’ appeal to the high court.
Conservatives must recognize the religious-liberty stakes: when the state can discipline or remove licenses from professionals who express traditional or faith-based perspectives, it is effectively declaring those viewpoints second-class. This case is about whether the government gets to reorder what counts as acceptable speech inside a professional setting — and whether Americans who hold traditional beliefs will be second-guessed or punished for them.
Advocates for Chiles underscore that this is often voluntary, client-initiated counseling where families seek guidance consistent with their values, not coercive or abusive practices that most reasonable people condemn. If the Court allows states to police these conversations, it will send a message to every parent and counselor that religious conviction and honest counseling are subject to state veto.
The consequences will ripple nationwide: a decision affirming Colorado’s approach would empower regulators to silence professional speech across dozens of jurisdictions, while a ruling for Chiles would reaffirm that the First Amendment still protects thought, conscience, and candid counseling. Patriots who care about speech, parental rights, and religious liberty should watch this case closely — the Court’s ruling will determine whether Americans can still speak, think, and counsel according to their deepest convictions.
