The Supreme Court will hear a challenge on Tuesday to Colorado’s “conversion therapy” ban on free speech grounds, the latest clash between First Amendment rights and laws pushed by LGBT advocates.

In Chiles v. Salazar, Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor in the Centennial State, argues that a law aimed at banning “conversion therapy” unconstitutionally restricts how she may talk with children experiencing gender dysphoria, banning her from trying to dissuade children from changing their gender identities or sexual orientations. Colorado argues the case is regarding healthcare regulations and protecting LGBT people.

Recommended Stories

• Supreme Court skeptical of allowing lawyer-client 'coaching' during overnight trial recess
• Supreme Court rejects Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal of Epstein plea deal
• Supreme Court to open term hearing case over what lawyers may discuss with testifying clients

For Chiles, it’s a Free Speech case

Chiles petitioned the high court to determine whether the law “censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients,” violates free speech protections. Both Chiles and conservative court-watchers view the case as a First Amendment dispute.

“This is literally speech. If the Court views it as a regulation of speech, which it clearly is, I think it’s an open-and-shut case,” Carrie Severino, president of the conservative advocacy group Judicial Crisis Network, told the Washington Examiner.

Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative law firm representing Chiles before the high court, has stressed that the case “goes to the heart of the First Amendment.”

“Can the government come in and say you can’t talk about certain things, or should clients and their families and their counselors be able to discuss issues openly?” Jonathan Scruggs, senior counsel and vice president of litigation strategy at ADF, told the Washington Examiner last month.

The point of contention with the law stems from whether the conversion therapy ban amounts to viewpoint discrimination, something Severino believes the Colorado law unconstitutionally does.

“They’re saying counselors can only say things that reinforce gender dysphoria — not things that help someone work through it. That’s only one side of the argument, and that’s exactly the kind of viewpoint-based restriction the First Amendment prohibits,” Severino said.

Scruggs also said the issue is not with Colorado seeking to ban outdated, harmful procedures, such as electroshock therapy, which the state “could write a law and do…no questions asked.”

“But the law applies not just to that – not just to conduct and these horrible procedures, but just to conversations that people want to engage in, and that just shows how much of a violation of the First Amendment that Colorado has passed and enforced,” Scruggs told the Washington Examiner.

Severino believes the state has tried to shift the narrative to make the case seem like it is challenging long-standing bans on barbaric medical procedures, when it is ultimately a free speech dispute.

“They’re trying to conflate this kind of talk therapy with other procedures — things like electroshock therapy — to make it sound more extreme. But this is just a woman speaking to willing clients who are seeking her out for her approach,” Severino said.

For Colorado, it’s about LGBT protections

Colorado has pushed back on the accusation that the law unlawfully censors counselors, instead arguing in its brief to the high court that siding with Chiles “would gut states’ power to ensure mental healthcare professionals comply with the standard of care.”

Ross Bagley, partner at Pryor Cashman and lead counsel on an amicus brief filed to the Supreme Court backing Colorado’s position, believes the case comes down to whether counselors should be held to regulations crafted by the state, or bound his or her personal beliefs.

“The question really comes down to whether psychological treatment and psychotherapy are a medical course of treatment that the state can regulate, or whether it is a place where personal views and beliefs and opinions are protected and should be put ahead of the state’s interests in making sure that the care being dispensed by licensed professionals to minors meets a certain standard,” Bagley told the Washington Examiner.

The brief Bagley lead was filed on behalf of Mathew Shurka, an LGBT advocate who testified in support of Colorado’s law while it was being debated.

Colorado’s brief also pointed to the “conversion therapy” ban being about protecting people, especially LGBT people, from “ineffective” treatments, rather than viewpoint discrimination.

“Conversion therapy may include physical conduct, will almost always include some words, and may be conducted with words only. Regardless of how it is performed, conversion therapy is ineffective and is associated with harms that include depression, anxiety, loss of faith, and suicidality,” the brief said.

Advocates and backers of the Colorado law believe the dispute is about whether standards can be placed for psychotherapy, rather than claims that viewpoints are being censored.

Bagley also warns that by siding with Chiles, the Supreme Court would allow counselor licenses to be easily obtained and not regulated.

“If the plaintiffs win, then the Supreme Court will effectively be saying that there is a constitutional right to obtain a license and provide treatment that the state of Colorado — and the people of Colorado — have decided is harmful and dangerous,” Bagley told the Washington Examiner.

Severino believes that the argument is “not accurate” and that the industry can be regulated while balancing First Amendment rights.

ADVOCATES WARN COLORADO ‘CONVERSION THERAPY’ BAN IN SUPREME COURT CASE IS ‘BLATANT CENSORSHIP’

“Colorado is saying that once you’re regulating the professional practice, all bets are off. But that’s just not accurate — you still have First Amendment rights, even in a regulated profession,” Severino said.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case at 10 a.m., with a decision expected in the coming months following arguments. The hearing comes on the second day of the high court’s new term and marks its first high-profile case.