October Term 2025 · Docket 24-539

Can Colorado Ban Counselors From Helping Minors Discuss Gender and Sexuality?

Colorado's law bars counselors from helping minors pursue state-disfavored goals on gender and sexuality. the side that brought the case calls it a speech restriction. The state calls it a healthcare safety rule.

Official caption
Chiles v. Salazar
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    the side that brought the case argued that Colorado's law restricts speech based on content and viewpoint and must survive strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.

    the opposing side argued that state power is at its apex when regulating healthcare professions to ensure safety, making the law a valid exercise of police power.

    Justice Sotomayor questioned whether a law on the books alone creates a chilling effect or whether an imminent threat of prosecution is required. Justice Sotomayor also asked the side that brought the case to define talk therapy and whether Colorado disavows enforcement of that kind of treatment.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Kaley Chiles, a counselor, challenges a Colorado law that prohibits helping minors pursue state-disfavored goals on gender and sexuality. The state defends the law as a healthcare safety regulation.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 7, 2025.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Seeks a ruling that the law violates the First Amendment because it restricts speech based on content and viewpoint.

Seeks a ruling that the law is a valid healthcare safety regulation protecting minors from unsafe and ineffective treatments.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The law restricts speech based on content and viewpoint, so it must survive strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.

State power is at its apex when regulating healthcare professions to ensure safety, making the law a valid exercise of police power.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked whether merely having a law on the books creates a chilling effect, or whether there must be an imminent and credible threat of prosecution.

Justice Sotomayor asked the side that brought the case to define talk therapy and whether Colorado disavows enforcement of that kind of treatment. Justice Sotomayor also asked about the opposite sex in counseling context. Justice Thomas asked whether Colorado argued below that the law only prohibits treatments seeking to change a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity because they are unsafe and ineffective.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome determines whether counselors in Colorado can help minors discuss gender and sexuality. The state argues it can prohibit such conversations as part of regulating healthcare safety.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON