Even though the high court is winding down its term with rulings large and small, the legal challenge by licensed counselor Kaley Chiles is getting attention for its potential impact.
Chiles is challenging a Colorado law, the Mental Health Practice Act. That law prohibits licensed mental health professionals from offering professional counseling if the therapist expresses views on sexual orientation or gender identity which the State of Colorado disapproves of.
Chiles and her attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom argue the Mental Health Practice Act infringes on a therapist’s First Amendment rights.
I
n her court brief, Chiles argued the State of Colorado should not have a “freer hand to regulate speech simply because the speaker is ‘licensed’ or giving ‘specialized advice.'”
In defense of its state law, Colorado says Chiles is held to a different standard. “Unlike laypersons,” the state told the justices, “those who choose to practice as health professionals are required, among various other responsibilities, to provide treatment to their patients consistent with their field’s standard of care.”
Reilly Stephens is an attorney at Liberty Justice Center, a law firm that filed a brief in support of Chiles.
"We think that is a First Amendment problem," Stephens tells AFN. “Essentially the government is deciding which viewpoints are appropriate and which are not."
After the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuit, the U.S. Supreme Court announced in March it will hear her appeal. The high court’s term begins in October, just four months away.
‘Conversion therapy’ for gender confusion?
A related story at the Scotus Blog website says the legal issue before the Supreme Court is over so-called “conversion therapy.” That term was coined years ago by homosexual activists who oppose counseling that is often religious in nature and is not affirming to a client with same-sex attractions.
After numerous political victories to ban "conversion therapy," however, one possible obstacle for homosexual activists is choosing to include counseling for gender confusion under the same umbrella as “conversion therapy.”
In its legal rebuttal to Chiles, the State of Colorado combined same-sex attraction with confusion over being male or female. It was necessary to pass the Mental Health Practice Act, the state argues, because there is “overwhelming evidence that efforts to change a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity are unsafe and ineffective.”
Justices ripped trans issue in ruling
Last week, in a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court revealed how a majority of justices treat the issue of gender confusion and gender identity. A majority of the justices defended Tennessee’s ban on so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors.
Much like homosexual activists coined “conversion therapy” to challenge faith-based counseling, transgender activists use “gender-affirming care” to describe controversial medical procedures that are now banned for minors in 26 U.S. states.
Those medical procedures give estrogen to young boys, and remove the breasts of girls, to help children who feel they were born in the wrong body.
In the Tennessee ruling, Justice Amy Coney Barrett also raised the issue of “immutable” characteristics.
“Transgender status is not ‘immutable,’ and as a result, persons can and do move into and out of the class,” she wrote.
According to the Colorado law, however, Chiles and other licensed counselors are not allowed to give advice that runs contrary to what the State of Colorado deems appropriate for people who are mentally confused.
