In 2022, licensed professional counselor (LPC) Kaley Chiles filed a lawsuit against Colorado over its ban on conversion therapies for minors. Chiles states she helps her minor clients to “reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of physical harmony within one’s body” and contends that the ban violates her First Amendment right to free speech and the free exercise of religion. The Colorado Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the ban; however, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear her case (Chiles v. Salazar) in their upcoming session in October of 2025, and the Alliance Defending Freedom will represent her.
While this case will set a precedent, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, this case is not unique.
In 2012, Alan Chambers, then president of Exodus International, which was the leading ex-gay Christian organization and conversion therapy provider globally, publicly announced that conversion therapies could not change a person’s sexual orientation and that the practices were harmful. While many questioned the sincerity of his statements and accused him of overlooking his organization’s accusations of physical and sexual abuse of minors, the downfall of Exodus International a year later dovetailed with the beginning of the movement underway to ban conversion therapies on minors nationwide.
And the Christian right immediately mobilized to stop those efforts.
California and New Jersey were the first states to ban conversion therapy on minors in 2012 and 2013, respectively, and lawsuits were filed against both states not long after. Like Chiles v. Salazar, both plaintiffs in those cases (King v. Governor of New Jersey & Pickup v. Brown) insisted that the bans were a violation of free speech. In both cases, the plaintiffs’ supporters came from many of the same far-right anti-LBGTQ+ interest groups. However, the appellate courts upheld the ban on conversion therapies. But for the first time, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case regarding the constitutionality of conversion therapy bans, which has perplexed many legal pundits, as the Supreme Court declined to listen to a similar case from the state of Washington in 2023.
It is also important to note that the bans on conversion therapies only apply to licensed mental health professionals. Conversion therapies have absolutely no evidence base that demonstrates their efficacy or safety, and there is no uniform model available that has undergone any scientific scrutiny. There is, however, a wealth of research that demonstrates people who undergo conversion therapies are at heightened risk of experiencing negative health and social outcomes, especially minors.
While most research has focused on sexual minorities, there is a growing body of research demonstrating the adverse impacts that conversion therapies can have on trans and nonbinary youth, specifically that they are much more likely to attempt suicide after exposure to conversion therapies, compared to sexual minority youth.
Any licensed mental health professional who is approached by a client of any age seeking conversion therapies has the ethical obligation to inform the client of the risks associated with the many so-called practices and refer the client to a clergy setting. It is striking to me that, outside of reaffirming their position that they oppose conversion therapies, the American Counseling Association, which Kaley Chiles maintains her license, has been virtually silent on this case. I contacted the American Counseling Association multiple times by phone and email and received no response.
The involvement of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) as legal representation for the plaintiff is also a major cause for concern. ADF is a well-funded think tank organization that has an extensive history of demonizing and persecuting the LGBTQ+ community and is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. ADF has also been extremely outspoken in its support for the re-criminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ+ adults in the United States following the landmark ruling in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, which struck down anti-sodomy laws in the United States.
Collectively, it is apparent that this case is not about freedom of speech; this case is about right-wing identity politics, driven heavily by Christian nationalism. ADF is still riding the momentum from their previous victories, including the United States v. Skremetti, which upheld the ban on gender affirming care for minors in Tennessee and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis which ruled the First Amendment prevents Colorado from forcing a website designer to create wedding websites for same-sex couples if doing so would violate her religious beliefs and expressive conduct. In an interesting turn of events, the entire foundation of that case was fictitious, as the gay male listed in the case was a straight man married to a woman.
Given the Supreme Court’s increasing right-wing leanings and the outcome of recent freedom of religion cases, it is likely that the Court will side with the plaintiff in this case. But where will the line be drawn? What other social issues will the Christian right be able to circumvent using free speech as an excuse to justify their quest to eradicate the separation between church and state, and what harm will it cause other vulnerable populations?
LGBTQ+ youth need our help and advocacy efforts, now more than ever, and it is time that we not only speak out but make concerted efforts at the local, state, and federal levels to keep them safe.
Voices is dedicated to featuring a wide range of inspiring personal stories and impactful opinions from the LGBTQ+ community and its allies. Visit Advocate.com/submit to learn more about submission guidelines. Views expressed in Voices stories are those of the guest writers, columnists, and editors, and do not directly represent the views of The Advocate or our parent company, equalpride.
This article originally appeared on Advocate: Fighting for LGBTQ+ youth: The cases challenging conversion therapy bans