Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. ___ (2026), is a recent United States Supreme Court decision that concerns a challenge to Colorado’s Minor Therapy Conversion Law (MTCL) of 2019. At issue, was a provision of the MTCL that prohibited the practice of “conversion therapy” when the client is a minor, i.e., under the age of 18. The MCTL prohibits counselors from speaking in any way that attempts to change, i.e., convert, a client’s “sexual orientation or gender identity”—including a client’s “behaviors or gender expressions”—or in any way that seeks to “eliminate or reduce” a client’s “sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”
Ms. Chiles is a licensed professional counselor in Colorado. In her practice, she engages only in “talk therapy.” Ms. Chiles alleges that the MTCL violated her rights under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment to the US Constitution in that it restricted her from practicing talk-based conversion therapy.
In evaluating whether government actions or laws violate constitutional rights, courts use a three-tiered framework. The levels of the framework are: strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny and rational basis review. Strict scrutiny is the most stringent level and rational basis review the least. The level applied varies depending on the constitutional right impacted. Strict scrutiny is triggered in instances in which there is a content-based restriction on speech that impacts First Amendment rights. To survive strict scrutiny, the law or regulation must be “narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.” There are a few recognized content-based restrictions on speech that do not automatically trigger strict scrutiny, e.g., fraud, defamation and “fighting words.”
At trial, the court concluded that the MCTL regulates health-care providers professional conduct and not speech, i.e., speech incident-to-conduct. As such, the court applied rational basis review, i.e., that the law is “rationally related” to a “legitimate government interest,” and found that the MCTL passed constitutional muster. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the trial court’s decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts’ decisions and found that the MCTL’s ban on conversion therapy, as applied to talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint, is content-based and did not fit into a recognized First Amendment strict scrutiny exemption. As such, the lower courts erred by applying rational basis review rather than the more rigorous First Amendment strict scrutiny. The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings applying the correct level of scrutiny.
The holding in Chiles did not pass on the constitutionally of the MTCL as such. Rather, it only found that the lower courts applied the wrong level of scrutiny in initially deciding on constitutionally of the statute.
###