Who controls what can be said in a counseling session?
That question was at the center of a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, and the answer has significant implications for Christian counselors and families.
In an 8–1 decision in Chiles v. Salazar, the Court addressed a Colorado law that restricts what licensed counselors can say to young clients about issues related to sexuality and identity. The Court delivered a clear message: The First Amendment does not allow the government to control which viewpoints may be expressed in these conversations.
For Christians, that message carries particular weight. Conversations about identity, truth, and how we live are deeply connected to faith and discipleship, rooted in the belief that God created each person with purpose according to His design.
That is what brought Kaley Chiles to the center of this case: that kids who seek this kind of counseling should not be blocked from receiving it.
Kaley Chiles is a licensed counselor in Colorado who talks with clients about various issues, including gender identity and sexual orientation. She sees her work as an outpouring of her Christian faith, and numerous clients come to her because they share her religious beliefs.
These are trust-based relationships in which individuals and families seek counsel consistent with their convictions. Clients are not coerced into a particular approach. They are seeking a counselor who will take their beliefs seriously and help them pursue the goals they have set for their own lives.
That is one reason this case matters for churches and ministries. Families often look for care, counsel, and support that align with their faith. When the government limits those conversations, it not only affects one counselor. It affects Christian families seeking that guidance.
Colorado wanted to restrict certain viewpoints
Colorado’s law does not leave these conversations up to Kaley and her clients. In 2019, the state banned voluntary counseling conversations to help clients under the age of 18 embrace their God-given sex. But it permitted counselors to encourage those same young people to reject their biological sex.
Any counselor who speaks with clients to help them achieve these forbidden goals faces steep penalties: up to $5,000 for each violation, possible suspension from practice, and even revocation of the counselor’s license.
In other words, the state allows one viewpoint and punishes another.
Kaley Chiles challenged the law before the Supreme Court with the support of Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys, arguing that counseling conversations are speech and that the First Amendment applies fully in that setting. Colorado maintained that it was regulating professional conduct, but the Supreme Court disagreed. As applied to Kaley, the law unconstitutionally suppressed her speech.
In the opinion, the Court emphasized that “the spoken word is perhaps the quintessential form of protected speech” and rejected the idea that speech loses protection simply because it occurs within a licensed profession.
“The First Amendment is no word game,” the Court wrote. “. . . [T]he rights it protects cannot be renamed away. . .” When a law restricts speech based on viewpoint, the concern is at its highest. Such restrictions, the Court noted, represent “an egregious form of content discrimination.”
This decision sets an important precedent that will guide how courts evaluate similar laws nationwide.
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. That means Colorado must now attempt to justify its law under a much more demanding level of review, one that laws restricting speech rarely survive.
More than 20 states and over 100 localities have enacted comparable restrictions on counseling conversations. This case will help combat other unconstitutional restrictions on speech and help ensure the truth can be freely proclaimed.
This decision also reinforces an important principle: The government cannot silence speech simply because it disfavors the message. That matters not only in formal counseling settings, but in the broader work of Christian care, discipleship, and ministry to families.
For believers, this decision carries clear implications. Christians, including those in licensed professions, now have greater assurance of their freedom to speak in accordance with their beliefs about God’s design and are not limited to state-approved viewpoints. It also gives hope to individuals and families that they will be free to seek counsel that aligns with those beliefs, including young people who simply want help regaining comfort with their sex.
As ADF Chief Legal Counsel Jim Campbell, who argued the case, said, “Kids deserve real help affirming that their bodies are not a mistake and that they are wonderfully made. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today is a significant win for free speech, common sense, and families desperate to help their children.”
This ruling draws a clear line that the government cannot cross. It cannot insert itself into counseling conversations and decide which beliefs may be spoken and which must be silenced. It cannot favor one set of views while punishing another. And it cannot redefine protected speech simply because it occurs within a licensed profession.
The First Amendment still means what it says, and it does not stop at the counseling room door.
Supreme Court Chiles v. Salazar ruling affirms counseling conversations are protected speech. What it means for churches, ministries, and counselors.
