Chiles v. Salazar: First Amendment Protections for Therapists

The United States Supreme Court ruled on March 31, 2026, that a Colorado law banning conversion therapy violates the First Amendment when applied to talk therapy conducted by a licensed mental health counselor.

In the case of Chiles v. Salazar, the court found that the state law regulates speech based on viewpoint. The ruling determined that the lower courts failed to apply a sufficiently rigorous level of First Amendment scrutiny to the regulation of this specific type of therapeutic communication.

The court held that because the law targets a specific viewpoint in talk therapy, it warrants strict scrutiny under the First Amendment. This decision impacts the legal framework for how states can regulate the speech of licensed mental health professionals during therapy sessions.

Legal Implications for Talk Therapy

The ruling specifically addresses the application of the ban to talk therapy. By classifying the restriction as viewpoint-based speech regulation, the Supreme Court has limited the ability of state governments to prohibit specific therapeutic approaches based on the perspective or goals of the counselor.

This shift in legal interpretation means that regulations on medical talk therapy must now meet a higher constitutional standard to be upheld, particularly when those regulations restrict the content of the speech used by providers.

Professional and Public Health Reactions

The American Psychological Association (APA) expressed concern regarding the decision on March 31, 2026. The organization stated it is concerned about the far-reaching consequences resulting from the Supreme Court’s ruling on the First Amendment right to freedom of speech in the context of therapy regulation.

The APA’s reaction highlights a tension between the constitutional protections of speech for providers and the regulatory efforts of health authorities to prohibit practices deemed harmful to patients.

The decision has sparked further debate regarding the protection of children and the potential for harm associated with conversion therapy practices, though the court’s primary focus remained on the First Amendment protections of the therapist’s speech.