Content warning: Discussions related to conversion therapies and the adverse effects they can have on minors.
Kaley Chiles is a licensed professional counselor (LPC) in Colorado who filed a lawsuit against the state of Colorado in 2022 because of Colorado’s ban on conversion therapies for minors that was enacted in 2019, referred to as Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law. Chiles states that 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 and that “Colorado law pushes them (LGBTQ+ youth) to harmful medical interventions such as drugs and surgeries.”
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 she will be represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom.
I was able to find very little information about Kaley Chiles, aside from the fact that she has been licensed to practice therapy as a Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC) since 2018, which I confirmed via the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies. There is no information available online or contained in court documents related to this case to suggest she has any advanced training in human sexuality, working with sexual minority (LGB) individuals, or in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of gender dysphoria for clients of any age. Even though her credentials, or lack thereof, are not the basis of this lawsuit, many experts have pointed out that it does bring into question her integrity as a mental health professional, given her willingness to provide psychotherapeutic services to a population for which she appears to have no training or clinical expertise in, as well as advocating for a modality that is considered by nearly all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in the United States to be harmful.
It is important to note that state bans on conversion therapies on minors only apply to licensed mental health professionals. As an LPC, Chiles can refer any clients seeking conversion therapies to pastoral counseling services by clergy and other staff who are not licensed to provide medical or mental health services in any capacity, as long as she informs the minor of the risks and harms associated with the pseudoscientific modality upon referral.
Another important consideration is that 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 the fact that the organization he led was accused of physical and sexual abuse of minors, the downfall of Exodus International a year later dovetailed with a time when there was a marked increase in LGBTQ+ youth coming out at much younger ages than previous generations, and a movement was underway to ban conversion therapies on minors nationwide.
California and New Jersey were the first states to ban conversion therapy on minors in 2012 and 2013, and immediately, lawsuits were filed against both states. 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. However, the ban on conversion therapies in both states was upheld in both cases by appellate courts as they determined conversion therapy bans on minors regulate conduct, with speech being incidental to that conduct. What is unique about this case is that it is the first case that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear regarding the constitutionality of conversion therapy bans, which has perplexed many legal pundits, as the Supreme Court declined to hear a similar case last year.
It is also important to note that when it comes to regulating the conduct of mental health professionals, which is done through state licensing boards that ensure mental health professionals work within the boundaries of their competence and that the interventions they utilize are evidence-based and grounded in scientific research. Conversion therapies are not evidence-based, and there is overwhelming scientific evidence that shows they have significant potential for harm, especially for minors; including putting them at risk to contemplate and or attempt suicide, and that reality supersedes the right to free speech on behalf of the mental health professional who wants to provide conversion therapies because of their personal religious beliefs.
It is puzzling, and flat out concerning to hear any person, much less a licensed mental health professional, put their personal religious beliefs before the health and well-being of a vulnerable population.
Finally, 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 has been classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center due to its history of promoting disinformation, such as claims that gay men are more likely to be pedophiles.
ADF has also been extremely outspoken in its support for the recriminalization 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. Dr. James Dobson, who co-founded ADF, resigned from his chair position of the American Psychological Association in 1973 in protest when homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness and went on to become one of the most influential figures in the conversion therapy movement in the United States through ADF and Focus on the Family.
Dobson and ADF have been pivotal in the movement to ban gender affirming care for minors in the United States. The contradiction is stark. ADF defends the use of conversion therapy on minors despite its proven harms and lack of scientific validity, while pushing to ban gender-affirming healthcare, which is extensively backed by research showing it leads to significantly better mental health and social outcomes..
Collectively, it is apparent to me that this case is not about free choice for children to be able to access a harmful practice, and even freedom of religion, this case is about right-wing identity politics, and if the Supreme Court sides with the plaintiff, there will be far reaching implications that go beyond the health and well-being of LGBTQ+ youth. Chiles v. Salazar will be heard during the Supreme Court’s 2025-26 Term, and a decision is expected by the end of June 2026.
