U.S. Supreme Court poised to strike down the laws of 27 states prohibiting Christian counselors from advising gender transitioning minor patients to instead affirm their biological sex in accordance with biblical perspectives of sex and gender

member of Cornerstone PRC in Dyer, Indiana, is a practicing attorney

STATUTORY PROHIBITION OF CONVERSION THERAPY

In the last two decades there has existed an ideological warfare over counseling goals for children who express so-called gender confusion or gender dysphoria, which has been defined as the alleged unease, discomfort, or distress some children feel about their biological sex, leading them to supposedly identify, transition, and live as a member of the opposite sex. Progressive LBGTQ+ psychological experts and organizations insist that such transitioning children must be uncritically supported and affirmed, and should be counseled to avail themselves of alleged transitioning treatments including drugs and surgeries.

In contrast, others, including many Christian mental health counselors, insist that minor children should be caringly counseled to reject transitioning and instead accept their natural bodies and reconcile their identity with their biological sex rather than transition to the opposite sex. This counseling perspective rejecting gender transitioning has ironically and disparagingly been labeled as “conversion therapy,” purportedly defined as the therapeutic practice aiming to convert or change an individual child’s believed perception of their sexual identity as different from their biological sex. Thus, rather than imprudently affirming the young child’s gender transitioning, conversion therapy counseling attempts to compassionately convince children to accept and affirm their birth sexuality and forego controversial gender dysphoria treatments such as taking cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers, and even surgical removal of healthy body parts, including breasts and genitals.

Shockingly, the legislatures of some 27 states, including Colorado and Michigan, have apparently implemented LBGTQ+ ideology and passed statutes banning so-called conversion therapy. Colorado, for example, claims that there is “overwhelming evidence that efforts to change a child’s sexual orientation or assumed gender identity are unsafe and ineffective.” These laws, prohibiting mental health professionals from advising minors to cease transitioning to a different sex, have the support of major mental health organizations including the American Psychological Association (which claims that efforts to counsel “gender confused” children to identify with and affirm their biological sex rather than transition to the opposite sex “are associated with harmful social and emotional effects including…suicide”).

CHRISTIAN COUNSELOR CHALLENGES THE COLORADO STATUTE AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Kaley Chiles is a Christian licensed professional counselor in Colorado who filed suit in 2022 against the State of Colorado (Chiles v. Salazar), seeking to have a local federal district court declare that the state’s 2019 Minor Conversion Therapy Law (MCTL)1 outlawing conversion therapy is a violation of her constitutional rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. Chiles stated in her pleadings that as a “practicing Christian, she believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex.” Her complaint also asserted that her professional counseling goals include “seeking to eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors or grow in the experience of harmony with one’s physical body.”

Chiles explained that some clients are referred to her by churches “who uphold a biblical worldview which includes the concepts that attractions do not dictate behavior, nor do feelings and perceptions determine identity.” Moreover, Chiles alleged that some of her clients “believe their faith and their relationships with God supersede romantic attractions and that God determines their identity according to what He has revealed in the Bible rather than their attractions or perceptions determining their identity.” Chiles also asserted that her clients with “same-sex attractions or gender identity confusion” who “prioritize their faith above their feelings, are seeking to live a life consistent with their faith,” and not being able to do so leads to “internal conflicts, depression, anxiety, addiction, eating disorders and so forth.” Finally, Chiles argued that because of the Colorado MCTL statute, she has been “forced to deny voluntary counseling that fully explores sexuality and gender to her clients and potential clients in violation of her and her clients’ sincerely held religious beliefs.”

DISTRICT COURT DENIES CHILES’ REQUEST FOR INJUNCTION

Chiles’ complaint sought to have the federal district court declare that Colorado’s MCTL statute banning “conversion therapy” was unconstitutional and to enjoin the state from enforcing the restriction forbidding all but gender-affirming counseling. The Court denied Chiles’ request for an injunction and held that although she had standing to challenge the MCTL statute, she failed to demonstrate a “likelihood of success” of her claim that the state law violated her rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. The judge held that the statute outlawing conversion therapy was “neutral and generally applicable,” and that the law was “rationally related to Colorado’s interest in protecting minor patients seeking mental health care from obtaining ineffective and harmful therapeutic modalities.”2 Chiles immediately appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS (10TH CIRCUIT) RULES AGAINST KALEY CHILES AND DEFENDS THE COLORADO BAN OF CONVERSION COUNSELING

In September of 2024, the majority of the three-judge federal appellate panel (2-1) held that the lower district court record sufficiently demonstrated that professional studies have shown that “religious efforts [at conversion therapy] indicate there are individuals who perceive they have been harmed by these techniques.” Accordingly, the majority held that Chiles’ free speech claim must fail: “We thus have no trouble concluding that the MCTL statute is rationally related to Colorado’s interest in protecting minor patients seeking mental health care from obtaining ineffective and harmful therapeutic modalities.” The two appellate judges also ruled essentially that speech by licensed counseling professionals in the course of their practice is not speech, but conduct, which is permissibly regulated by state health licensing departments.

The panel majority also rejected Chiles’ claim that the MCTL violates her constitutional free exercise of religion rights, ruling:

Laws that only incidentally burden religion are ordinarily not subject to strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause so long as they are neutral and generally applicable, no matter how severely that law burdens religious exercise. …Nothing in the record suggests the MCTL’s aim is to infringe or restrict practices because of their religious motivation. …[T]he MCTL targets therapeutic practices because of their harmful effect on minors, rather than their religious nature [emphasis added].

THE DISSENT

Writing in dissent, Judge Hartz vigorously disputed the majority panel’s ruling. He claimed that the scientific studies and reports denouncing conversion therapy, including the pronouncements by the American Psychological Association (APA), are not trustworthy and credible, but rather are “illustrations of what happens when ideology prevails over the scientific approach.” He noted that only a few decades ago the APA held that homosexuality was a mental disorder, but inexplicably now claims that therapists should affirm same-sex relationships and gender transitioning.

Judge Hartz also cited recent professional scientific studies in Europe (including the Cass Review commissioned by England’s National Health Service) that have come to an opposite conclusion: That so-called gender-affirming care has no scientific basis, but is simply a “scientific scandal.”3 Moreover, Hartz opined that, contrary to the majority’s conclusion, the evidence does not adequately support the claim that gender-affirming treatment for minors reduces anxiety, depression, and suicide risk.

In conclusion, the dissent held that there is insufficient scientific evidence to hold, as the majority did, that conversion therapy is ineffective and harmful to children, and therefore there is no rational basis justifying Colorado’s ban or the censoring of Kaley Chile’s therapeutic methods counseling children to affirm their biological sex in accordance with Christian biblical standards of sexuality.

CHILES V. SALAZAR NOW PENDING BEFORE U.S. SUPREME COURT

Kaley Chiles, represented by the Alliance Defending  Freedom (ADF), an evangelical religious freedom nonprofit legal organization, immediately appealed the two-judge appellate ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which held oral arguments in October of 2025 and will presumably release its decision sometime in February or March of 2026. The issue before the Supreme Court can be formally summarized thus: Does a Colorado law banning conversion therapy—that is, attempts to “convert” children’s non-biological sexual orientation or gender identity—violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?

Since 26 states in addition to Colorado (including Michigan)4 have likewise banned conversion therapy, the Chiles v. Salazaar case has gained national attention and many are awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision in this controversial ideological battle. An indication of the notoriety and importance of the case is that more than 50 organizations have filed amicus (friend-of-the-court) briefs in the case, either supporting Chiles freedom of religion and free speech rights or defending Colorado’s egregious statute censoring Christian counselors.

After hearing the oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar in October of 2025, and following the recent ruling striking down a similar Michigan statute (see footnote below), most Supreme Court legal observers are predicting that the conservative majority of the Supreme Court will overrule the 10th Circuit and find that the Colorado statute unconstitutionally violates the free speech and religious freedom rights of mental health professionals who do not subscribe to LBGTQ+ ideology. Should this occur, Christian counselors and parents of minor children across the United States will be relieved and appreciative of such a decision re-affirming religious and free-speech freedoms.

1 The Colorado MCTL statute defines the prohibited “conversion therapy” as “…any practice or treatment by a licensed mental health professional that attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual attraction or feelings to individuals of the same sex….” Violation of this egregious statute entails severe disciplinary actions for licensed mental health professionals (including license revocation) and fines up to $5,000 per violation.
2 The district judge apparently embraced the testimony of a Rutgers University psychologist specializing in LBGTQ+ psychotherapy and a report by the American Psychological Association which claim that ‘conversion’ therapies that do not affirm gender transitioning by minors are “ineffective and harmful,” even allegedly causing youth suicide.
3 See Pamela Paul, “Why is the U.S. Still Pretending We Know Gender-Affirming Care Works?,” N.Y. Times (July 12, 2024). The article contends that “the U.S. continues to put [woke] ideology ahead of science.”
4 Curiously, on Dec. 18, 2025, while the Chiles v. Salazar case was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Federal Appellate Court for the 6th Circuit, contrary to the 10th Circuit’s Chiles v. Salazar decision, found the similar Michigan statute banning conversion therapy to be unconstitutional and struck it down.