Supreme Court Strikes Down Colorado Counseling Ban, Rules 8–1 That Talk Therapy Restrictions Violate First Amendment

March 31, 2026 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - In a landmark free‑speech ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held 8–1 in Chiles v. Salazar that Colorado's 2019 ban on certain forms of talk therapy for minors violates the First Amendment. The decision marks the Court's most sweeping statement to date on the constitutional protections afforded to licensed counselors and other professionals whose work consists entirely of speech.

The Colorado law prohibited licensed counselors from engaging in conversations aimed at helping minors reduce or change unwanted same‑sex attractions, behaviors, or gender‑related distress. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, concluded that the statute "censors speech based on viewpoint" and is therefore "unconstitutional" under the First Amendment's strong protections for free expression.

Majority: Counseling Is Speech, Not Conduct

Justice Gorsuch rejected Colorado's argument that talk therapy is merely "professional conduct" subject to broad state regulation. Because counselor Kaley Chiles' practice involved no medication, physical intervention, or medical devices, the Court found that the law directly targeted speech itself.

"The spoken word is perhaps the quintessential form of protected speech," Gorsuch wrote. "And that is exactly the kind of expression in which Ms. Chiles seeks to engage."

Labeling counseling as "treatment," the Court said, does not strip it of constitutional protection. "The First Amendment is no word game," Gorsuch wrote, adding that speech cannot be "renamed away or nullified by mere labels."

The opinion also noted that some minors seek counseling to align their attractions or behaviors with their personal values or biological sex. Colorado's law, the Court said, prevented those conversations from occurring while permitting only speech that affirms a child's gender transition - a form of viewpoint discrimination the Constitution does not allow.

Allowing such a law to stand, Gorsuch warned, would create a "cavernous First Amendment free zone" for any profession that relies on speech.

Dissent: States Retain Authority Over Medical Practice

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued the lone dissent, arguing that counseling "incidentally" involves speech but is fundamentally a form of medical or therapeutic practice subject to state regulation. She wrote that the practice of medicine is "subordinate to the police power of the States," and that Colorado's restrictions should be viewed through that lens.

The majority firmly rejected that framing, emphasizing that licensed professionals do not surrender their free‑speech rights by obtaining a state license.

A Decade‑Long Legal Battle Reaches the High Court

Liberty Counsel, which filed two amicus briefs in the case, has been involved in litigation over counseling bans for more than a decade. The organization first challenged such laws in Pickup v. Brown in California in 2012 and later secured victories in Florida, where the Eleventh Circuit struck down local counseling bans in Otto v. City of Boca Raton and Vazzo v. City of Tampa.

Those rulings created a split with the Tenth Circuit, which had upheld Colorado's law - a conflict that ultimately prompted the Supreme Court to take up Chiles v. Salazar.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver called the ruling "a major victory for the integrity of the counseling profession," stating that the decision ensures "the government cannot strip the First Amendment away from licensed counselors and dictate a state‑mandated ideology between counselor and client."

Broader Implications

The Court's decision is expected to have nationwide implications for states and municipalities with similar counseling bans. By holding that talk therapy is protected speech, the ruling sets a high constitutional bar for any government attempting to restrict what licensed professionals may say in the context of voluntary counseling.