Jennifer Roback Morse, 10/11/25
A case before the Supreme Court could end the left’s attempt to stifle dissent in the therapist’s office.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday in Chiles v. Salazar, a case that could reshape counseling freedom across America. The law at issue is one of several so-called “conversion therapy bans” that restrict what therapists may say to their clients.
The Ruth Institute calls them what they are: “Must Stay Gay” laws. These laws silence counselors and harm families, especially young people struggling with trauma, anxiety, and sexual confusion. The question before the court is simple: Does the First Amendment allow a state to dictate which viewpoints a licensed therapist may express?
A Strong Signal from the Court
The central issue in Chiles is viewpoint discrimination. Colorado’s law allows therapists to affirm a child’s same-sex attraction or gender confusion — but forbids them from helping a client resist or change those feelings. Justice Samuel Alito captured the absurdity in one hypothetical, which I paraphrase (the whole argument is here):
An adolescent male comes to a licensed therapist; he feels uneasy and guilty about feeling attracted to other boys. He asks the therapist to help him feel better as a gay man. Colorado law permits this. Another adolescent male goes to a licensed therapist and asks him to help him feel less attracted to other boys. Colorado law forbids this.
That’s government picking sides in a moral debate, not equality under the law.
When pressed, Colorado’s attorney stumbled badly. Alito then asked whether “medical consensus” has ever been wrong. She hesitated, and he reminded her of Buck v. Bell, the notorious 1927 decision that upheld forced sterilization based on “progressive” science. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes expressed the common progressive opinion at the time: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
In closing, Alliance Defending Freedom attorney James Campbell, who represents therapist Kaley Chiles, delivered the knockout line:
The state of Colorado allows a 12-year-old girl to seek counseling to affirm her so-called gender identity as a boy without parental consent — but forbids her, even with her parents, from seeking help to accept herself as female.
That’s blatant viewpoint discrimination. On this point, the justices seemed receptive.
Junk Science and the ‘Born this Way’ Myth
The state also claimed that no one has ever changed their sexual attractions — a claim as false as it is arrogant. One counterexample disproves it, and there are thousands. Our amicus brief cites studies and testimonies from men and women who experienced real change, often through talk therapy.
Colorado’s attorney dug herself in deeper, asserting that all theories linking abuse or family dynamics to sexual identity have been “debunked.” They haven’t. The research she relies on doesn’t distinguish between minors and adults, licensed and unlicensed therapists, or talk therapy and coercive “aversion” practices.
That’s ideology, not science. And the justices noticed. ...