Free Speech Arguments – Can States Censor Conversations Between Therapists and Clients? (Chiles v. Salazar)

The Free Speech Arguments Podcast brings you oral arguments from important First Amendment free political speech cases across the country. Find us on Spotify and Apple Podcasts

October 7, 2025   •  By IFS Staff   •    •  ,

Episode 37: Chiles v. Salazar 

Chiles v. Salazar, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on October 7, 2025. Argued by James Campbell (on behalf of Kaley Chiles), Hashim Mooppan, Principal Deputy Solicitor General (on behalf of the United States), and Shannon Stevenson, Colorado Solicitor General (on behalf of Patty Salazar).

Case Background (from the Supreme Court question presented): 

Kaley Chiles is a licensed counselor who helps people by talking with them. A practicing Christian, Chiles believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex. Many of her clients seek her counsel precisely because they believe that their faith and their relationship with God establishes the foundation upon which to understand their identity and desires. But Colorado bans these consensual conversations based on the viewpoints they express. Its content- and viewpoint-based Counseling Restriction prohibits counseling conversations with minors that might encourage them to change their “sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions,” while allowing conversations that provide “[a]cceptance, support, and understanding for … identity exploration and development, including … [a]ssistance to a person undergoing gender transition.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12- 245-202(3.5).  

The Tenth Circuit upheld this ban as a regulation of Chiles’s conduct, not speech. In doing so, the court deepened a circuit split between the Eleventh and Third Circuits, which do not treat counseling conversations as conduct, and the Ninth Circuit, which does.  

Question presented: 

  • Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Clause 

Resources: 

Listen to the argument here: 

     

The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. 

IFS Staff

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap