Chiles V Salazar OPA Response
On March 26th, 2026 the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Chiles v. Salazar, a challenge to Colorado’s law protecting youth from conversion therapy. In an 8–1 decision, the Court ruled Colorado’s law, as applied to talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint. The case will be remanded back to the lower court and must be reviewed under a more rigorous First Amendment standard.
In APA’s response, CEO Arthur C. Evans Jr., PhD, voiced a broader concern with the ruling: “the Court has left a core legal question of the case unresolved: whether states can regulate what licensed mental health professionals say to their patients in a clinical session.” The Court’s ruling calls into question a state’s authority to regulate the speech-based professional conduct of licensed providers.
This is a significant legal development and a setback for preventive protections. The Court’s position characterizes the speech of a licensed mental health provider, within the context of their professional role, as speech protected by the First Amendment rather than as a form of professional conduct subject to state regulation. Clinical conversations psychologists have with patients are not simply expressions of opinions; rather, they are highly specialized treatments that demonstrate advanced application of scientific knowledge, research, clinical theory, and best practices to target mental health symptoms and diagnoses.
In her dissenting opinion Justice Jackson wrote, “The Constitution does not pose a barrier to reasonable regulation of harmful medical treatments just because substandard care comes via speech instead of scalpel.” Language is one of the primary tools of psychotherapy and mental health interventions. The consequential significance of the specialized treatment provided by psychologists is greatly diminished when relegated to the status of “just speech,” not professional conduct. Surgery is more than “just cutting,” pharmacology is more than “just chemicals.” The relevant unit is the professional treatment intervention, not the medium through which it is delivered.
It is critical that we, as psychologists, clearly understand what this ruling does and does not mean. This decision is about constitutional limits on state regulation of speech, not about the validity of conversion therapy.
- It does not find conversion therapy to be safe, effective, or ethical.
- It does not change the overwhelming scientific consensus that conversion therapy is harmful.
- It does not remove accountability for psychologists who engage in harmful practices.
Conversion therapy remains unethical, below the standard of care, and may constitute professional negligence. It continues to be subject to malpractice claims, licensing board discipline, and civil liability. States may be limited in their legal authority to uphold laws that would aim to prevent harm related to speech-based professional conduct. However, accountability after harm remains fully intact. Whether it be conversion therapy or any practice that is unethical, below the standard of care, and known to cause harm, survivors of such harmful practices continue to have meaningful legal pathways, including malpractice claims, consumer protection actions, and professional licensing complaints.
Psychologists in Oregon remain accountable to our professional code of ethics and the laws and administrative rules that govern the practice of psychology in Oregon. Our ethical compass remains unchanged. We are committed to evidence-based practice, to doing no harm, and to protecting vulnerable populations.