‘The truth about Chiles v. Salazar’

Editor:

In Mark Hillman’s April 16, 2026 guest commentary in the Gunnison Times, he describes, in a rather partisan way, a summary of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Chiles v. Salazar. The case that he describes centers on the rights of a Colorado Springs therapist to perform conversion therapy, a form of talk therapy focused on changing an individual's gender identity or attraction to persons of the same sex.

Chiles took her case to court saying that the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) violated her First Amendment right to free speech. DORA, which regulates professional practice and conduct, was enforcing Colorado House Bill HB 19-1129 that prohibited licensed mental health professionals from attempting to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity through conversion therapy. The Colorado legislature passed HB 19-1129 based on the fact that conversion therapy is debunked science and rejected by the American Psychological Association,vthe American Psychiatric Association and the European Union. 

If we pull back the curtain and look at the origin of this case, we will find it to be based on religious freedom. For 250 years, the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment have provided a balanced relationship between the government and the church. Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has opened the door to religious freedom cases. In essence, the shield that the Establishment Clause had provided us has been hammered into a sword that is being used to leverage privilege for a very small and very conservative branch of Christianity.

Chiles v. Salazar is a manufactured case drafted, financed and argued by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a legal firm that calls itself “the largest legal organization committed to religious freedom, free speech, the sanctity of life, marriage and family and parental rights.” ADF will only accept and defend cases that promote their uber-conservative agenda.

Chiles v. Salazar was argued in the U.S. District Court in 2019, where the court ruled against Chiles stating that DORA regulated professional conduct, not free speech. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit also ruled against Chiles. ADF filed a petition for certiorari to SCOTUS. For every 100 petitions for certiorari filed with SCOTUS, one is taken up by SCOTUS. SCOTUS agreed to hear Chiles v. Salazar.

The Roberts Court has a tendency to accept cases and morph them into something other than how they originally presented to the court. In Majestic Cakeshop Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a Denver gay couple wanted a wedding cake and the bakery refused due to religious beliefs. This case began as a civil rights violation of the gay couple but ended at SCOTUS as a religious freedom case and a victory for the bakery shop owner. In Chiles v. Salazar, the case began as a regulatory and public safety issue and ended up being a victory for unregulated free speech and conservative Christianity.

Our rule of law is dependent upon a robust body of case law that is a mirror image of our society. Case law like Chiles v. Salazar distorts our case law and in the process, marginalizes groups to include LGBTQ+ citizens and non-Christian U.S. citizens. This case also damages the ability of DORA to regulate professional conduct which in turn, impacts public safety. In years to come, the legacy of the Roberts Court will tell us how far SCOTUS went off the rails in its defense of a single religion and its adherents. 

Jeff Oster

Gunnison