The Supreme Court is poised to deliver a judgment on a pivotal case concerning the legality of Colorado’s 2019 Minor Conversion Therapy Law (MCTL). The law, which prohibits licensed therapists from engaging in efforts to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity, has been challenged by Christian counselor Kaley Chiles. The case, which has garnered national attention, raises significant questions about the extent of free speech and religious liberty within the realm of professional counseling.
Kaley Chiles, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, argues that the MCTL unfairly discriminates against certain viewpoints, violating her First Amendment rights. The law allows therapists to affirm a minor’s self-identified orientation or gender identity, but it restricts counseling that attempts to reconcile a minor's identity with their biological sex. Chiles' legal team asserts that this represents viewpoint discrimination, favoring one ideological perspective over another and thus infringing upon constitutional protections.
The case touches upon the broader debate of whether counseling in a professional setting is considered conduct that can be regulated or if it is protected speech. With over half of the states in the U.S. having enacted similar bans, the Supreme Court’s decision is set to have far-reaching consequences for counseling practices across the nation.
During oral arguments, the justices delved into whether the law is applied inconsistently. Justice Elena Kagan, as reported by Fox News, highlighted a scenario where one therapist's support for a minor’s self-identified orientation is permissible, while another's encouragement of alignment with biological sex is not, questioning the rationale behind permitting only one approach.
Justice Samuel Alito also expressed concerns regarding the potential politicization of medical consensus and the possibility that laws like the MCTL might inadvertently endorse a particular ideological stance.
Chiles describes her counseling method as "faith-informed," emphasizing that it is voluntary and aimed at helping minors find congruence with their physical bodies, rather than changing their sexual orientation. She has stated, according to The Daily Caller, that the law prevents young individuals from accessing counseling that could be crucial for their emotional and mental health.
The state of Colorado defends the MCTL as a necessary measure to regulate professional conduct and shield minors from practices that have been associated with negative mental health outcomes, such as depression and anxiety. State officials have referenced studies that link conversion therapy to these adverse effects. However, Chiles’ attorneys challenge the validity of these studies and argue that voluntary counseling can be beneficial and non-harmful.
The justices also contemplated how professional speech is protected under the Constitution. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that professional advice is often intertwined with speech and questioned whether it should be stripped of protection simply because it is dispensed in a licensed therapeutic setting.
Observers suggest that a ruling in favor of Chiles could undermine the ability of states to enforce broad restrictions on counseling provided to minors, thus redefining the boundaries of government regulation in professional guidance. Conservative justices seemed open to the argument that the law might unconstitutionally limit certain viewpoints while sanctioning others, hinting at a potential change in how courts assess similar laws in the future, as reported by RedState.
As the Supreme Court continues to weigh the arguments, the legal community and the public await a decision that could redefine the intersection of free speech, religious expression, and professional counseling in America.
