Oral Argument Preview | Chiles v. Salazar | Battle Over Conversion Therapy and Therapist Free Speech Rights

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