The U.S. Supreme Court's March 31 decision in Chiles v. Salazar, which struck down Colorado's conversion therapy ban by an 8-1 vote, is forcing cities and states across North America to rewrite or abandon similar laws as the legal landscape shifts against government regulation of counselor speech.
The U.S. Supreme Court's March 31 decision in Chiles v. Salazar, which struck down Colorado's conversion therapy ban by an 8-1 vote, is forcing cities and states across North America to rewrite or abandon similar laws as the legal landscape shifts against government regulation of counselor speech.
The ruling, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, held that Colorado's law prohibiting mental-health counselors from helping clients "realign their identity with their sex" constituted unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. "The First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country," Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion. "It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely."
The decision has already produced concrete policy reversals. Kansas City repealed its 2019 conversion therapy ban in May by a 7-5 council vote after Missouri's attorney general sued the city, citing the Supreme Court precedent. The city is now advancing a rewritten ordinance that avoids naming conversion therapy, LGBTQ+ people or minors — instead banning "dangerous and life-threatening therapeutic practices" defined as treatments raising the risk of suicide, self-harm or depression. Violators would face a $1,000 fine per incident and potential loss of their business license.
"We're going to be among the toughest in the country, and what I would do is say to conservative lawyers, bring it on," Mayor Quinton Lucas said at a town hall, according to local news reports. The rewrite exempts unpaid religious and pastoral counseling, targeting only paid providers.
In Oregon, the Board of Licensed Professional Counselors and Therapists withdrew its disciplinary order against Catholic counselor Frank Canepa on June 5, citing Chiles v. Salazar as the reason. Canepa had faced nearly $90,000 in fines and other sanctions after telling a longtime client he could not personally affirm her same-sex relationship due to his Catholic faith. The Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Canepa, had appealed the board's decision on First Amendment grounds.
"The government can't target counselors for their views and force people to say things that go against their core convictions," said Jonathan Scruggs, ADF senior counsel and vice president of litigation strategy, in a statement. "The Supreme Court recently took Colorado to task for censoring counselors and mandating orthodoxy in the counselor's office, and Oregon should take notice."
The ruling's impact extends beyond the U.S. border. In Canada, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal fined former Chilliwack school trustee Barry Neufeld 750,000 Canadian dollars (about $530,000) for stating that a man cannot become a woman, calling his comments "misinformation" that caused "injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect." Lawrence M. Krauss, writing in the Wall Street Journal, drew a direct parallel between the BC tribunal's compelled-speech logic and the Supreme Court's rejection of viewpoint-based restrictions in Chiles.
Legal experts warn the Kansas City rewrite may face its own challenges. Allen Rostron, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, said the vague wording — which never mentions conversion therapy, minors or sexual orientation — invites a new fight over who decides which therapies count as dangerous. The Alliance Defending Freedom, which successfully challenged the original ban alongside the Missouri attorney general, has signaled it views the replacement as another attempt to restrict protected speech.
The Trevor Project estimates that conversion therapy leaves LGBTQ+ youth more than twice as likely to attempt suicide, a statistic that cities and states have used to justify the bans. But the Supreme Court's 8-1 majority in Chiles drew a bright line: however well-intentioned, the government cannot silence counselors' personal or professional viewpoints during talk therapy sessions.
A Kansas City council committee could take up the rewritten ordinance as early as this week, with public comment expected. The outcome will test whether the Supreme Court's free speech framework leaves room for any government regulation of therapeutic conversation — or whether the 8-1 ruling effectively ends the era of conversion therapy bans as they have existed for the past decade.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.
