The Supreme Court took up a landmark free-speech fight on October 7, 2025, hearing Chiles v. Salazar, the challenge to Colorado’s 2019 law that bans “conversion therapy” for minors by licensed therapists. What unfolded in the courtroom was a clear reminder that the First Amendment is being tested in real time, and that the justices are once again being asked whether the government can pick winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas. This case isn’t abstract law school fodder — it hits at the heart of parental rights and the free speech of counselors who serve vulnerable kids.
From the questioning, even some of the Court’s liberal members appeared troubled by the possibility of blatant viewpoint discrimination: a counselor who affirms a child’s sexual feelings is permitted while one who counsels toward change is punished. That is precisely the kind of unequal treatment the First Amendment forbids, and conservatives should be thankful the Court is willing to interrogate laws that wear the cloak of protection but function as censorship. If speech can be criminalized simply because a politician dislikes its viewpoint, free Americans lose more than lawyers do — they lose liberty.
The plaintiff, Kaley Chiles, is a Christian counselor who says Colorado’s licensing law effectively silences her professional judgment and religious conscience, and she’s backed by conservative legal allies who argue this is compelled orthodoxy masquerading as health regulation. The involvement of the federal government in supporting free speech here underlines how serious the legal questions are; this isn’t about abstract theology, it’s about whether licensed professionals keep the right to speak with clients in ways consistent with their conscience. Conservatives should view this as a frontline defense of religious freedom as much as free speech.
Colorado insists the law is a narrow health-and-safety measure meant to protect minors from supposedly harmful practices, and points to medical establishment opposition to conversion therapy as justification. Reasonable people can debate the science, but the state’s argument falls flat if it treats words as conduct and silences only the disfavored view. When a government can discipline a therapist for saying certain things, it’s not protecting children so much as imposing a state-sanctioned orthodoxy.
This fight also has precedent: the Court has rebuked government attempts to force speech in other contexts, and the principle that speech cannot be regulated merely because officials dislike its message is central to conservative jurisprudence. If the Court allows viewpoint-based bans to stand in the name of “health,” we’ll watch a cascade of similar laws spread across states that want to control controversial speech rather than let families and professionals decide. Conservatives must not be coy about defending free speech when the fog of compassion is used as cover for coercion.
The stakes are enormous — roughly two dozen states have similar laws, and a ruling for Colorado would be weaponized nationwide to silence dissenting counselors and flush parental authority down the regulatory toilet. Americans who believe in free thought, free conscience, and the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children should pay attention and push back against one-size-fits-all mandates from state bureaucracies. This case is a wake-up call: defend speech, defend faith, and defend families before the courts allow more taste-of-the-week orthodoxy to become permanent law.
