I want to draw your attention to the Supreme Court’s treatment of Colorado’s “conversion therapy” ban. This High Court drama is playing out under Chiles v. Salazar, which faced oral arguments last month at the beginning of the new Court term. The challenge is brought by Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor in Colorado who claims this law banning so-called “conversion therapy” censors her speech as a counselor and prohibits certain private conversations with her clients.
Colorado claims this law regulates medical conduct, not speech. But in practice, it is a double standard. So-called “affirming” therapies are permitted, while those offering a different viewpoint are silenced or penalized. That’s discrimination dressed in regulatory language. Colorado’s lawyers faced a tough line of questions from several justices during oral argument, struggling to maintain consistency on the state’s law. Justices Gorsuch and Barrett demanded clarity on whether this law is based on principled distinctions or merely favors one viewpoint. Justice Alito was particularly sharp, cutting through the state’s false pretenses. He exposed the absurdity of this law that pretends neutrality while penalizing dissenting perspectives, particularly religious ones. He didn’t mince words: Colorado is kneecapping opposing speech under the guise of regulating professional conduct.
Alito’s view tracks with a conservative legal position: when a state permits one side of a therapeutic debate but bans the other, it is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. He signaled skepticism that medical consensus, however strong, can override first principles of free speech — especially when ideological conformity is demanded. The Alito line is: the Constitution doesn’t allow states to pick winners in the marketplace of ideas, even when one “side” claims superior science.
Looking ahead to Chiles v. Salazar, the Court now faces these questions: Does the First Amendment protect all counseling speech or can states silence counselors whose views diverge? Will Colorado’s ban survive under something less than “strict scrutiny,” or will the Court declare it an unconstitutional chilling of dissent? If the Court strikes down Colorado’s law, it will reopen the path for therapists to offer therapies aligned with biological sex and traditional morality, free of state-imposed ideological limits. If the ban survives, states gain more power to enforce woke speech orthodoxy in clinical settings.
Given the tone of questions, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court appears inclined to push back on this Colorado overreach.
Join Phyllis Schlafly Eagles in tracking this case as the new Supreme Court term unfolds. Visit PhyllisSchlafly.com today and sign up for our emails! Again, that’s Phyllis Schlafly dot com. Thanks for listening, and join us tomorrow for the Phyllis Schlafly Report.
This post originally appeared at https://phyllisschlafly.com/family/scotus-skeptical-of-colorado-conversion-therapy-ban/