Colorado’s law banning “conversion therapy” for children confounded the Supreme Court on Tuesday, with justices saying it seemed to shut down speech that would normally be protected by the First Amendment.

Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor, has challenged the law, saying it prevents her from bringing her Christian perspective to her work with families as their kids grapple with gender dysphoria or same-sex attraction.

“Ms. Chiles is being silenced, and the kids and families that want her help are unable to access it,” said James Campbell, her lawyer.

He said if Colorado prevails, counselors and therapists could turn into “mouthpieces of the government” and be muzzled on other issues such as abortion and divorce.

But Shannon Stevenson, Colorado’s solicitor general, said the state banned gender conversion therapy because studies have shown it’s unproven and unsafe.

She said banning it is similar to the state prohibiting any other medical treatment that violates the standard of care doctors are expected to deliver.

“Counseling is a medical-based practice,” Ms. Stevenson told the court, emphasizing that states can regulate it and that banning conversion therapy is a “reasonable regulation of professional conduct.”

“That treatment doesn’t work and poses a risk of harm,” she said.

The case comes to the justices a year after they upheld a Tennessee law that constrained so-called “gender-affirming” treatments for children. In a 6-3 ruling in that case, the high court said the science was rapidly developing and states needed to be allowed to explore without the heavy hand of the courts.

Colorado’s law bans medical professionals from “any practice or treatment … that attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feeling toward individuals of the same sex.”

Ms. Stevenson said the law would allow a “life coach” or a member of the clergy to offer the same perspectives as Ms. Chiles.

The solicitor general said the difference is that the state licenses counselors, which carries an imprimatur of the state and a fiduciary responsibility to a client to deliver the best care.

“This is just a fundamentally different relationship,” she said. “No one has ever suggested that a doctor has a First Amendment right to say the wrong advice to their patient.”

That wasn’t convincing to Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, who said doctors prescribing medication or advising on surgery are different than a counselor’s work on sexual orientation or identity issues.

“I have this feeling that’s a different kind of case,” she said.

She compared Colorado’s law to one that would let a therapist help someone affirm a gay identity but bar the specialist from helping try to change it.

“That seems like viewpoint discrimination in the way we would normally understand viewpoint discrimination,” the justice said.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., a George W. Bush appointee, offered a similar hypothetical.

“It is like blatant viewpoint discrimination,” he said.

He said the court already dealt with these issues in a 2018 case where the justices struck down a California law that tried to dictate what pro-life crisis pregnancy centers could counsel their clients.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, quizzed Ms. Stevenson on the medical evidence specifically, suggesting some states may view the medical standard of care as inconclusive and pass different laws.

“There might be a dispute in the medical community,” Justice Barrett said. “Can a state pick a side?”

Hashim Mooppan, principal deputy solicitor general with the Justice Department, agreed, siding with Ms. Chiles. He told the justices that the state’s law poses a credible threat of enforcement over speech violations and that the state has no evidence that the talk therapy is harmful to minors.

“They just don’t have any of that,” he said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, suggested the case may be premature.

She said the law was passed in 2019 yet has never been enforced — even against Ms. Chiles.

“We have basically six years of no enforcement of this law,” she said.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Biden appointee, said if the court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender treatments last year, it would seem that it should also uphold Colorado’s ban on conversion treatments.

“I’m just, from a very, very broad perspective, concerned about making sure that we have equivalence with respect to these things,” she said.

Mr. Mooppan disputed the comparison.

“There shouldn’t be equivalence because, obviously, we have a First Amendment,” he said.

• Stephen Dinan can be reached at sdinan@washingtontimes.com.

• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.