The U.S. Supreme Court opened its 2025-2026 term on Monday, October 6, with a docket packed full of contentious cases that could reshape the country’s legal landscape on issues ranging from LGBTQ+ rights to the boundaries of free speech and state power. With the conservative majority firmly in control, the Court’s early lineup signals another term poised to ignite fierce national debates and potentially roll back key protections for bodily autonomy and democratic norms. At the center of this term’s most closely watched battles are three cases brought by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a Christian legal group known for its advocacy on behalf of conservative religious causes.
One of the headline cases, Chiles v. Salazar, challenges Colorado’s 2019 ban on conversion therapy for minors. The law, which mirrors bans in 22 other states, prohibits state-licensed mental health professionals from attempting to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The law carves out an exception for non-licensed religious counselors and allows therapists to provide support and identity exploration—as long as they don’t seek to change a patient’s core identity. But Kaley Chiles, a Christian therapist in Colorado, argues that the ban violates her First Amendment rights by restricting her ability to provide what she calls “faith-informed” counseling to minors who wish to “reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of harmony with [their] physical body.”
Chiles, represented by ADF attorney Erin Hawley, sued the state in 2022, contending that the law is a viewpoint-based restriction on her speech. “They’re peering into the counseling room and intruding on these private counseling conversations,” Chiles told CBS News. She further explained, “When I’m having to turn them away, they don’t get help that is helpful for any of those issues. They are just without a course to be able to offer true help to them from a professional.”
Colorado officials counter that the law is not about censoring speech, but about protecting children from what they describe as a “harmful and ineffective” treatment. In court filings, the state emphasized that the law only prohibits therapy aimed at changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity, not counseling that helps patients explore or understand themselves. “The only thing that the law prohibits therapists from doing is performing a treatment that seeks the predetermined outcome of changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity because that treatment is unsafe and ineffective,” state attorneys wrote.
The legal battle has highlighted a deep divide in federal courts over whether such bans regulate professional conduct or cross the line into unconstitutional speech restrictions. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Colorado, upheld the ban in September 2024, ruling that the law regulates conduct, not speech. This echoed decisions by the Ninth Circuit, while the Eleventh Circuit has gone the other way, finding that similar bans target protected speech and violate the First Amendment. The Supreme Court declined to take up a similar case from Washington in 2023, but three conservative justices—Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh—dissented, signaling their willingness to strike down such bans.
Arguments in Chiles v. Salazar began on October 7, 2025, and a decision is expected by June 2026. Both sides have invoked the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling on California’s “crisis pregnancy centers” law, which found that compelling professionals to deliver certain messages can violate free speech rights. “It’s not the government’s role to peer into the counseling room and say some goals are permitted. Some goals are forbidden. Some speech is allowed. Some speech is forbidden,” said Jonathan Scruggs, senior counsel at ADF. On the other hand, Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, argued, “What’s prohibited by these laws is a very specific, very narrow set of practices, with the therapist trying to impose their own agenda on a minor patient, trying to seek a predetermined outcome.”
Medical organizations have weighed in as well, warning that conversion therapy is both ineffective and potentially dangerous, citing links to depression, anxiety, and suicidality among minors. Colorado’s defenders warn that a ruling in Chiles’ favor could destabilize longstanding health care regulations and undermine states’ power to set standards for professional conduct. “If the court were to accept Chiles’ argument that any time there’s a professional regulation of medical care that applies to what a provider can and cannot say, that’s a free speech issue... that would be a very revolutionary, dramatic change in the current legal landscape,” Minter told CBS News.
The Supreme Court’s term will also see arguments in West Virginia v. B.P.J., a case that could set a national precedent on transgender athletes’ participation in school sports. West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act bars transgender girls from competing on girls’ teams from middle school through college. The law was challenged by the ACLU on behalf of Becky Pepper-Jackson, the state’s only openly transgender athlete, who argued the ban violates Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the law, but the Supreme Court agreed in July 2025 to hear the case. If the ADF prevails, the ruling could pave the way for similar bans nationwide and potentially exclude transgender athletes from school sports even in states without such laws, depending on how sports leagues respond.
A third ADF-backed case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, could have sweeping implications for state oversight of so-called “crisis pregnancy centers.” The case centers on whether federal courts can intervene in state investigations, specifically New Jersey’s probe into whether First Choice Women’s Resource Centers misled donors and clients about the services they provide. New Jersey’s attorney general issued a subpoena for fundraising records, which First Choice challenged as a violation of its First Amendment rights. Lower courts sided with the state, but the Supreme Court granted review in June 2025. If the ADF wins, it could sharply limit states’ ability to investigate and regulate anti-abortion centers, creating a new First Amendment shield against subpoenas in such cases.
Beyond these headline-grabbing disputes, the Court’s term includes cases on the Voting Rights Act and the president’s authority to fire independent agency officials. All of this unfolds as Chief Justice John Roberts marks his 20th year on the bench—a tenure that has seen the Court hand down landmark decisions expanding corporate rights, restricting voting access, and overturning Roe v. Wade. According to Rewire News Group, the Court’s legitimacy is at a historic low, with polling showing public trust eroding amid perceptions of partisanship and judicial overreach.
As the justices take their seats for another high-stakes term, the nation watches closely. The decisions made in the coming months will ripple far beyond the courtroom, shaping the contours of American law and society for years—if not decades—to come.
