Fact Check: "Chiles v. Salazar could overturn state bans on conversion therapy for minors."
What We Know
The case of Chiles v. Salazar involves Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado, who is challenging the state's 2019 law that bans conversion therapy for minors. This law, known as the Mental Health Care Treatment Law (MCTL), prohibits licensed mental health professionals from attempting to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity for clients under 18 years old (Missouri Law Review). Chiles argues that this ban infringes upon her First Amendment rights, specifically her rights to free speech and free exercise of religion (New York Times).
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the MCTL, stating that it regulates professional conduct rather than restricting free speech. The court found that the law serves legitimate state interests in protecting minors from potentially harmful practices associated with conversion therapy (Justia). The MCTL allows for therapeutic practices that promote acceptance and support without attempting to change a client's sexual orientation or identity (New York Times).
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Chiles's challenge, focusing on her free speech argument, which suggests that the outcome could have implications for similar laws in other states (Colorado Newsline).
Analysis
The claim that Chiles v. Salazar could overturn state bans on conversion therapy for minors is partially true. While the case is significant and could potentially lead to changes in how states regulate conversion therapy, the current legal framework indicates that the Tenth Circuit's ruling supports the constitutionality of such bans. The court's decision emphasized that the MCTL is a regulation of professional conduct aimed at protecting minors, which is generally permissible under constitutional scrutiny (Missouri Law Review, Justia).
Chiles's legal representation, the Alliance Defending Freedom, is known for advocating conservative Christian positions, which raises questions about potential bias in their arguments (New York Times). However, the Tenth Circuit's reliance on scientific consensus regarding the harms of conversion therapy lends credibility to its ruling, suggesting that the law is grounded in established research rather than ideological bias (Justia).
The dissenting opinion in the Tenth Circuit highlights concerns about the implications of the law on free speech, indicating that there is a significant debate surrounding the issue. This dissent could influence the Supreme Court's considerations, as the justices may weigh the balance between professional regulation and First Amendment rights (New York Times).
Conclusion
The verdict is Partially True. While the case of Chiles v. Salazar has the potential to challenge and possibly reshape state bans on conversion therapy for minors, the current legal standing supports the constitutionality of such bans. The Supreme Court's decision to hear the case indicates that the issue is contentious and unresolved, but it does not guarantee that state bans will be overturned.
