Zhihan Xu

Document Type

Supreme Court Commentaries

Publication Date

3-13-2026

Keywords

conversion therapy, statutory interpretation, supreme court, NIFLA, conduct, speech, First Amendment, strict scrutiny, minor conversion therapy law, MCTL, licensing, professional

Subject Category

Constitutional Law | Law

Abstract

In 2019, the Colorado General Assembly passed the Minor Conversion Therapy Law (MCTL), a statute which prohibits mental health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy for minors. Three years later, Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor and addiction counselor, filed a pre-enforcement challenge and sought a preliminary injunction, alleging that the MCTL improperly abridges her First Amendment right to free speech. Colorado challenged her claim, arguing that the MCTL merely regulates professional conduct and only incidentally (and permissibly) burdens speech. Chiles v. Salazar will decide whether the MCTL is a speech restriction or professional regulation, and, if it is a speech restriction, whether it can survive heightened judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment.

Beyond the immediate ramifications of this case, the Supreme Court in this instance has an opportunity to clarify questions left unanswered by previous precedent. Most notably, the Court in NIFLA v. Becerra explicitly rejected professional speech as a distinct category of speech subject to differing levels of First Amendment protection but simultaneously declined to clarify where permissible regulation of professional conduct tips into impermissible speech restriction. This Commentary discusses this distinction and argues that the Court should hold that the MCTL is a permissible regulation of professional conduct. Nonetheless, this Commentary also acknowledges that the Court seems poised to hold that the MCTL is a form of speech restriction; it consequently explores the precedential impacts of this holding and analyzes how the MCTL will fare if subjected to strict scrutiny.

Download

Share

COinS