The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a major First Amendment ruling in Chiles v. Salazar, holding that Colorado’s conversion-therapy law, as applied to a licensed counselor’s talk therapy with minors, regulates speech based on viewpoint and that the lower courts did not apply the required level of constitutional scrutiny. The decision is likely to reshape ongoing litigation over state regulation of licensed professionals and could prompt renewed challenges to similar laws across the country.

The case was brought by counselor Kaley Chiles, who argued that Colorado’s law barred her from engaging in voluntary, client-directed conversations about sexuality and gender identity when those conversations sought outcomes the state disfavored. In siding with Chiles, the Court rejected the idea that the speech at issue could be treated as mere professional conduct subject to lighter review. Instead, the Court emphasized that when a law targets what a speaker may say to a client based on the perspective expressed, courts must take a far harder look under the First Amendment.

For practitioners tracking the case, the Supreme Court docket is available here: Kaley Chiles, Petitioner v. Patty Salazar, et al.. The underlying Tenth Circuit appeal, which upheld the law before the Supreme Court stepped in, can be found here: Chiles v. Salazar, et al.

The ruling matters well beyond the counseling context. States have long argued that they possess broad authority to regulate licensed professions, including through limits on what professionals may say in treatment settings. The Court’s decision signals that such regulations cannot avoid meaningful First Amendment review simply by being framed as occupational rules. That is a significant development for healthcare providers, licensing boards, educational institutions, and employers operating in heavily regulated fields.

For litigators, the opinion provides a stronger framework for challenging professional-speech restrictions, especially where a statute appears to permit one side of a sensitive discussion while prohibiting the other. For in-house counsel and compliance teams, the case raises immediate questions about whether existing policies, training materials, disciplinary protocols, and state-law compliance programs need to be revisited in light of heightened constitutional risk.

Expect this decision to become a leading precedent in future disputes involving therapist speech, medical counseling, and other professional-client communications. It also all but guarantees a new wave of challenges to similar state laws, with lower courts now under clear instruction to apply more exacting First Amendment scrutiny.