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.
