Episode Details

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: Prof