This week the Supreme Court heard another case related to free speech rights, this time addressing the legality of LGPTQ+ “conversion-therapy” bans under the First Amendment. In Chiles v. Salazar, a counselor brought a challenge to a Colorado law that banned talk therapy directed at changing feelings or behavior related to sexuality.
In the 10th Circuit below, the plaintiff contended that permitting therapy which affirms one’s sexuality while prohibiting conversion-therapy violated their free speech and free exercise of religion rights under the First Amendment. Chiles v. Salazar, 116 F.4th 1178, 1191 (10th Cir. 2024).
However, Colorado argued—and the court there agreed—that the therapy itself only incidentally involved speech and was therefore capable of being regulated by Colorado under its healthcare code. Id. at 1204. The court also found that the challenged statute was neutral and generally applicable and therefore did not violate the free exercise clause either. Id. at 1225.
The only issue brought before the Supreme Court on appeal was 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 of the First Amendment.” [1] Based on oral argument which occurred on October 7th, 2025, it seems as though the Justices are inclined to agree with the plaintiff’s position that their free speech rights have been violated by the conversion therapy ban.[2]
Of interest, during oral argument the recent United States v. Skrmetti decision was also discussed by the Justices. In Skrmetti, the Court upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-transition medical treatments under a 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause challenge. United States v. Skrmetti, 145 S. Ct. 1816, 1837 (2025).
At oral argument in Salazar, Justice Jackson questioned why the prohibition on gender-transitioning medical treatments would be constitutional while a law banning conversion therapy would not be.[3] The plaintiff, supported by the Justice Department, distinguished Skrmetti on the basis that case dealt with “medical care” while the conversion-therapy ban occurred during conversations between a counselor and a client.[4] As such, conversion therapy bans implicated speech directly and the same concerns in Skrmetti related to the state’s interest were not present with respect to conversion-therapy bans.
In Michigan, the outcome of Chiles v. Salazar has the potential to affect a Michigan statute prohibiting conversion therapy signed into law in 2023. See MCLA § 330.1901a. As always, the attorneys at Dalton & Tomich, PLC will be tracking these developments in constitutional law so that we are able to better serve our clients.
[1] Chiles v. Salazar (Conversion Therapy), SCOTUSblog (last visited, October 10th, 2025), https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/chiles-v-salazar/
[2] Lawrence Hurley, Supreme Court skeptical of state bans on conversion therapy aimed at LGBTQ kids, NBC News (October 7th, 2025), https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-weighs-challenge-bans-conversion-therapy-aimed-lgbtq-kid-rcna235192
[3] Transcript of Oral Argument at 53 – 54, Chiles v. Salazar, 145 S. Ct. 1328 (2025) (No. 24-539).
[4] Id. at 54.
