CatholicVote is urging the Supreme Court to strike down Colorado’s ban on so-called “conversion therapy,” warning that the law directly violates the First Amendment by criminalizing religious speech and enforcing a progressive agenda on Christian counselors.
At the center of the case is Colorado’s 2019 Counseling Ban, which prohibits licensed professionals from engaging in any counseling that “attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” However, the law expressly allows therapy that affirms LGBT identity, permitting “acceptance, support, and understanding” as well as “identity exploration and development.”
According to case documents, Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor and practicing Christian, serves minors who, in her words, “prioritize their faith above their feelings” and seek guidance to live according to their religious beliefs. Colorado’s law, she argues, forces her to either censor her speech or face steep penalties, including license suspension and fines of up to $5,000 per violation.
Chiles challenged the ban in federal court, claiming it violates her First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. Both the district court and a divided Tenth Circuit panel ruled against her, concluding that her counseling constitutes “conduct” rather than protected speech.
CatholicVote filed a June 13 amicus brief arguing that Colorado is weaponizing its law to silence religious dissent and impose the state’s preferred ideology.
“CatholicVote urges SCOTUS to protect Kaley Chiles’ ability to provide willing clients with talk-therapy that addresses their gender distress,” CatholicVote cofounder Joshua Mercer said in a statement. “People should not have to forfeit their religious convictions to provide professional counseling, and individuals with gender-distress should be able to receive counseling that addresses their condition — not drugs and surgeries with no proven therapeutic effects pushed by ideologically-driven professional associations.”
“Colorado’s effort to silence professionals who dissent from the State’s gender-identity agenda is wrong and, if allowed,” Mercer added, “will set a dangerous precedent that allows the state to dictate the speech of any member of a licensed profession.”
CatholicVote’s brief argued that Colorado has effectively entrenched a government-imposed position on moral and religious issues, advancing progressive views on sex and gender while punishing those who dissent.
“The message Colorado disfavored is not difficult to identify,” the filing states. “Colorado opposed change counseling based on its particular viewpoint about sex, gender, and sexual ethics.”
Instead of permitting open discussion, CatholicVote argued, the state “codified its own perspective — that ‘sexual orientation is immutable, but gender is not’ — and prevented therapists from engaging in expression that was inconsistent with the State’s view.”
“By barring a particular viewpoint on this important issue, Colorado skewed the marketplace of ideas, permitting only state-approved speech in sessions with minor clients who sought help ‘prioritizing their faith above their feelings … to live a life consistent with their faith.’”
The Supreme Court agreed in March to hear Chiles’ appeal. A final decision is expected by June 2026 and could have sweeping implications for similar laws already in place across more than 20 states.