Here is a quote from the article:
When Kaley Chiles welcomes therapy clients to her tranquil bungalow of an office, she offers loose-leaf tea and asks what brings them to counseling, what’s causing distress and how she can help them meet their goals.
Under a 2019 Colorado law, if clients under 18 tell her that their same-sex attractions are causing them stress, as a licensed therapist, she is forbidden from counseling them to change their sexual orientation. If they want to talk about their gender identity, she cannot advise them to change it.
Colorado lawmakers and major medical groups say that kind of counseling is ineffective and potentially harmful for minors, and it is therefore appropriate for state governments to outlaw it for licensed mental health professionals.
Mrs. Chiles, an evangelical Christian with a master’s degree in clinical mental health from Denver Seminary, says the law violates her First Amendment rights, constraining what she is allowed to say in therapy sessions with young people who have sought out her care.
And here is how the Court described the case when it granted cert:
24-539 CHILES V. SALAZAR
DECISION BELOW: 116 F.4th 1178
CERT. GRANTED 3/10/2025
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.
The question presented is:
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
Oral argument will be October 7 (this Tuesday)
No comments:
Post a Comment