On Oct. 7, the case Chiles v. Salazar was argued before the Supreme Court. Based around a Colorado statute (House Bill 19-1129) which criminalizes conversion therapy, in which it is defined as “any practice or treatment by a licensed physician specializing in the practice of psychiatry that attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.” In essence, conversion “therapy” attempts to alter the identity of queer individuals through forms of medical treatment.

Colorado’s definition aligns with contemporary sentiments of what conversion therapy is. For example, the American Psychological Association’s definition is “[therapy which] describes any attempt to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.” An operative term in both definitions is “change” — conversion therapy should be understood as working within an ideology that sees queerness as voluntary.

While this law was passed in 2019, in September 2022, Kaley Chiles, a Christian therapist, brought a lawsuit claiming that the statute was unconstitutional insofar as it restricts First Amendment speech from a biased viewpoint. Her case eventually reached the 10th Circuit, where it was decided that Colorado did not infringe on Chiles’ constitutional rights. However, the case was eventually granted a writ of certiorari in March of 2025 and was heard before the Supreme Court. 

In the 10th Circuit’s decision, Chiles’ therapeutic model is described —

“[M]any of her clients uphold a biblical worldview … [and] believe their faith and their relationships with God supersede romantic attractions and that God determines their identity according to what He has revealed in the Bible rather than their attractions or perceptions determining their identity.”

Important to Chiles’ argument is that “[she] does not try to help minors change their attractions, behavior or identity when her minor clients tell her they are not seeking such change.” 

Despite her framing, what she practices would be considered conversion therapy by the Colorado statute.

Chiles is by no means bringing this lawsuit alone, as her case is being backed by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a political organization that uses the courts to try to ban LGBTQ+ healthcare around the United States. They have also worked with and been endorsed by the Trump administration for this advocacy. In an article released about the upcoming case, the ADF said, “children in Colorado can be counseled toward dangerous drugs and surgeries — but not the reverse,” equivocating conversion therapy and transgender healthcare.

The ADF is not the only major anti-trans organization to take an interest in Chiles v. Salazar. In an amicus brief submitted by America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) — an organization with a similar history of using the courts as a way to limit transgender healthcare — they make the argument that the form of conversion therapy which Chiles practices is necessary to combat “racial-gender ideology” in health care. The brief they filed also brings up the same threatening narrative as the ADF, engendering a comparison between trans healthcare and conversion therapy. This theory of conversion therapy as an alternative to gender-affirming care has also appeared in the oral arguments heard before the Supreme Court on Oct. 7, as expressed by Chiles’s attorney James Campbell.

“Ms. Chiles helps clients when their goals are to resolve gender dysphoria by getting comfortable and realigning their identity with their true sex,” Campbell said.

Campbell not only makes an argument about the constitutionality of her therapeutic model but also affirms its efficacy in erasing the trans identity of Chiles’ potential clients. From this, Campbell makes a further argument that trans kids are actually the ones being hurt by the relevant statute.

“[Colorado’s law] undermines the well-being of kids that are struggling with gender dysphoria,” said Campbell.

26 states, the District of Columbia, the World Health Organization and the American Psychological Association disagree.

In a political climate that is suffocatingly trying to extinguish the rights and acceptance of trans people, the arguments undergirding Chiles v. Salazar offer an insidious alternative for anti-trans organizations to hang their hats on. 

When states continue to ban healthcare for trans children, they are inevitably left with the question of an alternative. How, instead, should they be treated? If the ADF and the AFLDS arguments are instated, then the answer would be some form of conversion therapy, which wholly calls into question Chiles’ argument about her patients wanting the therapy, as it seems her side wants it to be the only option — not simply one of many. Even in the initial claim by Chiles, she ignores the flood of social pressure threatening queer minors in red states. 

Samuel Malaby of Whitman’s Lavender House (queer-interest) contests the argument of “voluntary participation” by queer youth.

“Maybe [the children] are saying it because they don’t want their parents to get angry at them. We don’t know,” said Malaby. “But as a care-provider, you have an obligation to figure that out, but can you reasonably assume it? No.”

It’s not like history backs up Chiles’ claim about consensual conversion therapy. As I am sure you know, conversion therapy has a monstrous history in the U.S. and globally. Infamously, forms of electroshock therapy as well as non-consensual inpatient treatment were used against gay, lesbian and queer kids.

It is also incredibly important to remember how the threat and imposition of conversion therapy affects queer children nationwide.

“If you’re underage or if you’re dependent on your parents for college and so forth, then you’re going to be forced into these institutions … for a worryingly large part of the queer population in this country it could be a very big problem,” said Malaby.

Malaby’s observation is also born out statistically. In another amicus brief submitted in Chiles V. Salazar, the Williams Institute — a research institution focusing on queer issues — argues that about half of all documented recipients were minors at the time of treatment, and it often resulted in anxiety and depression for those who were purported to have been treated.

This could affect LGBTQ+ minors in red states at a significantly higher rate, with potentially more severe actions.

“For me the idea of conversion therapy isn’t distant, I grew up in two really red states. For some queer children, they were going to send you to a mental institution, which happened to a friend of mine,” said Jack Bingaman, a resident of the Lavender House. “They’ll start restricting who you can see, who you can talk to. Queer children grow up scared and aren’t able to trust the people they’ve been told their whole life they can trust.”

While I endorse the phrase “law is downstream from culture,” as Bingaman argues, this relationship is also reciprocal. If conservative parents see that conversion therapy is once again an accepted medical field, they may inherently buy into the viewpoint that gender and sexuality are choices — which would be a major step backwards from the progress that’s been made. The effect this would have on the queer children of these parents would be catastrophic.

“It’s a huge problem to go up to someone and say, I don’t believe your identity. It’s going to exacerbate issues on all sides, mentally, physically, emotionally,” said Bingaman.

This sentiment was also expressed by Attorney Shannon W. Stevenson in her oral arguments against Chiles’ claims.

“The harms from conversion therapy come from when you tell a young person you can change this innate thing about yourself. And they try and they try and they fail, and then they have shame and they’re miserable. And then it ruins their relationships with their family,” said Stevenson.

It seems from almost all authoritative sources, judicial sources and the opinions of queer people themselves, conversion therapy is both ineffective and causes harm to the patients it seeks to “help.” However, we should remember that this was never about helping people, or even the First Amendment. Despite wearing the thin veneer of judicial debate, Chiles v. Salazar is another knot tied by a movement that seeks to impose a repressive and (OT) Christian worldview on all Americans.

As the queerest generation, Gen-Z is bearing the fruits of the decades of unfaltering advocacy by queer social movements. From these movements came landmark legislation and jurisprudence — most famously in the 2010 decision of Obergefell v. Hodges. This support for LGBTQ+ people has provided them with security to explore their identities, especially queer children who don’t often have financial security and could risk alienation from their parents and home. 

While the decision has not been released and likely won’t be until June of next year, it is important to keep in mind that the Supreme Court overturns 65% of the cases it grants a writ of certiorari to.