On October 7, 2025, the United States Supreme Court found itself at the epicenter of a fierce national debate, as justices heard oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar—a landmark case that could redefine the legal landscape for so-called "conversion therapy" across the country. The case, which has captured the attention of religious communities, LGBTQ+ advocates, legal scholars, and families alike, centers on whether state bans on conversion therapy for minors violate the First Amendment rights of counselors and their clients.
At the heart of the controversy is Kaley Chiles, an evangelical Christian counselor from Colorado. Chiles, represented by the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, contends that Colorado's 2019 law banning conversion therapy for minors unlawfully censors her ability to offer faith-based counseling to clients who wish to align their gender identity with their biological sex. According to Bloomberg Law, Chiles argues that the law not only infringes on her free speech rights, but also prevents children and families from accessing the counseling they seek. "Ms. Chiles is being silenced, and the kids and families who want her help are unable to access it," said her attorney James Campbell during oral arguments.
Conversion therapy, a controversial and widely discredited practice, aims to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity—usually to conform to heterosexual or cisgender norms. The mainstream medical community, including the American Psychiatric Association, has long denounced the practice as ineffective and potentially harmful. Yet, as The Forward reports, conversion therapy persists in various religious communities, including Orthodox Judaism, where organizations like Jewish Family Forever continue to advocate for traditional heterosexual marriage and offer counseling aligned with those values.
The Supreme Court’s engagement with Chiles v. Salazar comes at a time when roughly half of U.S. states have enacted laws banning conversion therapy for minors. Supporters of these bans, including Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson, argue that therapy is health care and that "providers have a duty to act in their patients’ best interest and according to their professional standards. The First Amendment affords no exception." Stevenson emphasized that Colorado’s law regulates licensed professionals, not religious ministries, and that the state bears responsibility for protecting children from harm.
Yet, as Washington Blade notes, the Court’s conservative majority appeared skeptical of the state’s arguments. Justice Samuel Alito called the law "blatant viewpoint discrimination," questioning why the state could ban counseling that seeks to align identity with sex while permitting therapy that affirms a child’s LGBTQ+ identity. Justice Neil Gorsuch pressed the point further, asking if a state in a different era could have banned therapy affirming homosexuality, highlighting the shifting tides of medical and social consensus.
The case also revives memories of notorious abuses associated with conversion therapy. Chaim Levin, a former plaintiff in a high-profile New Jersey lawsuit against the group Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality (JONAH), described his harrowing experiences in an interview with The Forward. Levin recounted bullying, nudity, staged humiliation, and forced sexual acts under the guise of therapy. "The incident that ultimately caused me to leave and to sue JONAH was when my life coach forced me to get naked and fondle myself in front of him, after I repeatedly said I did not want to," Levin recalled. Such abuses led to JONAH’s court-ordered disbandment in 2015, though the organization attempted to resurface under a new name before being shut down again in 2019.
Despite such legal victories, Levin remains skeptical about the effectiveness of conversion therapy bans, noting that enforcement is rare and that many providers simply rebrand their services as treatment for "sex addiction" or "men’s issues." He told The Forward, "All it did was to drive conversion therapy underground. No person offering conversion therapy is going to call it that. They’ll offer treatment for 'sex addiction,' 'men’s issues,' or 'intimacy issues.'" Levin also highlighted that bans often carve out exceptions for religious counseling and life coaches, leaving significant loopholes.
The legal arguments in Chiles v. Salazar hinge on whether counseling constitutes protected speech or regulated professional conduct. Chiles’ attorneys argue that her work involves only voluntary conversations—no medication or physical procedures—and thus should be protected by the First Amendment. They cite the 2018 Supreme Court decision in NIFLA v. Becerra, which held that professional speech is not exempt from constitutional protections. The state, meanwhile, maintains that regulating the practice is necessary to safeguard children’s health, and that the law targets conduct, not speech.
During oral arguments, the justices probed the law’s boundaries. Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether Colorado’s law would apply to Chiles’ speech, and after clarification from the state’s attorney, concluded that "this settles the standing question." Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that strict scrutiny—the highest level of constitutional review—might apply, but wondered whether malpractice suits could address claims of harm instead.
Supporters of conversion therapy bans point to tragic stories like that of Ryan Robertson, whose mother Linda testified that conversion therapy devastated her son’s self-esteem and contributed to his suicide at age 20. "What happened in conversion therapy, it devastated Ryan’s bond with me and my husband," Linda Robertson told Washington Blade. "And it absolutely destroyed his confidence he could ever be loved or accepted by God." These stories underscore the stakes for families and individuals affected by such practices.
On the other side, Chiles and her supporters argue that the law denies children and families the right to seek counseling that aligns with their faith and values. According to Bloomberg Law, Chiles’ team cited a study suggesting that almost 90% of children with gender dysphoria before puberty eventually identify with their biological sex, arguing that Colorado’s law blocks access to the support some families want.
Beyond Colorado, legal battles over conversion therapy bans are playing out across the country. As Washington Blade reports, the Supreme Court agreed to hear this case after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Colorado’s law, while the 11th Circuit has struck down similar bans in Florida. In Wisconsin, the state’s high court recently allowed enforcement of its ban, while Virginia has scaled back enforcement following a legal settlement.
For LGBTQ+ individuals in religious communities, the case resonates on a deeply personal level. Levin, now a law student, reflected, "I want to be sensitive. But I don’t believe that it’s a safe place for gay or queer people. I certainly am not going to tell people to leave the community. I don’t think that’s the answer. But a community can only be as safe as it wants to be." While organizations like JQY and Eshel offer support, Levin noted that mainstream Orthodox institutions remain largely unwelcoming.
As the Supreme Court prepares to issue a decision by June, the outcome of Chiles v. Salazar could have sweeping implications—not just for the regulation of conversion therapy, but for the balance of free speech, religious liberty, and the state’s duty to protect vulnerable youth. The country waits, watching as the justices weigh the rights and risks at the heart of this contentious debate.
