VotePredictor

← The Supreme Court

Chiles v. Salazar

No. 24-539 · October Term 2025 · First Amendment · decided March 31, 2026

questions presented (PDF) · docket · Oyez

73%chance Chiles (petitioner) wins · a likely call

Decided: Chiles won 8-1. The model was right.

Expected vote 5–4 for Chiles. Chance of a unanimous ruling 32%. FantasySCOTUS crowd: 73% Chiles.

The case

Kaley Chiles, a Christian counselor, is challenging a Colorado law that prohibits her from engaging in certain counseling conversations with minors regarding sexual orientation or gender identity, arguing it violates her free speech rights. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban, classifying the counseling as regulated conduct rather than protected speech. The Supreme Court will now decide whether such a law, which censors specific viewpoints in counseling, regulates conduct or infringes upon the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

  • Does a state law that restricts certain counseling conversations based on their content and viewpoint regulate professional conduct or violate the Free Speech Clause?
  • How should the Court distinguish between speech and conduct in the context of professional services, particularly when those services are primarily conversational?
  • What level of scrutiny applies to laws that restrict speech in professional settings, especially when religious viewpoints are involved?
  • How does this case impact the circuit split regarding whether counseling conversations constitute conduct or speech?

AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-02. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.

Parties
Petitioner: Kaley Chiles, Petitioner
Respondent: Patty Salazar, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, et al.
Below
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · September 12, 2024
116 F.4th 1178 · ruling coded liberal · cert. granted 3/10/2025
Question presented, as filed

Kaley Chiles is a licensed counselor who helps people by talking with them. A practicing Christian, Chiles believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God's design, including their biological sex. Many of her clients seek her counsel precisely because they believe that their faith and their relationship with God establishes the foundation upon which to understand their identity and desires. But Colorado bans these consensual conversations based on the viewpoints they express. Its content- and viewpoint-based Counseling Restriction prohibits counseling conversations with minors that might encourage them to change their "sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions," while allowing conversations that provide "[a]cceptance, support, and understanding for ... identity exploration and development, including ... [a]ssistance to a person undergoing gender transition." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12- 245-202(3.5). The Tenth Circuit upheld this ban as a regulation of Chiles's conduct, not speech. In doing so, the court deepened a circuit split between the Eleventh and Third Circuits, which do not treat counseling conversations as conduct, and the Ninth Circuit, which does. The question presented is: Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Clause

Facts of the case (Oyez)

Kaley Chiles is a licensed professional counselor practicing in Colorado Springs. She holds a master's degree in clinical mental health and provides talk therapy, specializing in clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality, gender dysphoria, and other mental health concerns. Chiles identifies as a Christian and serves clients who often seek religiously informed care that aligns with traditional biblical understandings of sexuality and gender. Prior to the enactment of a 2019 Colorado law banning conversion therapy for minors, Chiles counseled clients, including minors, in accordance with their self-identified goals, which sometimes included diminishing same-sex attractions or aligning gender identity with biological sex. Since the law’s passage, Chiles has refrained from engaging in discussions with minors that she believes could be interpreted as conversion therapy and alleges that this has hampered her ability to provide full counseling services in line with her and her clients’ religious convictions. In September 2022, Chiles brought a pre-enforcement lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Colorado officials responsible for enforcing the statute. She alleged that the ban on conversion therapy for minors violates her rights under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Seeking a preliminary injunction, she asked the district court to block enforcement of the law against her. The court denied the motion but found she had standing to proceed. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed in full, holding that Colorado’s law regulates professional conduct that incidentally involves speech and survived rational basis review.

The nine

Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in First Amendment cases, and when the lower court ruled liberal; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.

JusticePredictedOverallThis issueLower court liberalAt argumentVoted
John G. Roberts
Republican appointee · since OT2005

Chief Justice Roberts often emphasizes judicial restraint and a narrow interpretation of statutes, but he has also shown a willingness to protect free speech, particularly in cases involving professional speech or religious expression. The question of whether counseling is speech or conduct will be central to his analysis.

66% Chiles68%
for the petitioner · 1,512 votes
75%
First Amendment · 83 votes
77%
lower court liberal · 730 votes
16 / 7
questions at Chiles / Salazar
Chiles ✓
Clarence Thomas
Republican appointee · since OT1991

Justice Thomas is a staunch originalist and a strong proponent of expansive free speech protections, especially against government censorship. He is likely to view the Colorado law as a direct infringement on speech, consistent with his jurisprudence on the First Amendment.

66% Chiles59%
for the petitioner · 2,801 votes
69%
First Amendment · 163 votes
77%
lower court liberal · 1,344 votes
3 / 6
questions at Chiles / Salazar
Chiles ✓
Samuel A. Alito
Republican appointee · since OT2005

Justice Alito is a consistent defender of religious freedom and free speech, often taking a broad view of these rights. He has frequently sided with individuals and religious organizations challenging government regulations that impact their expression or practices, making him likely to scrutinize the Colorado law closely.

76% Chiles62%
for the petitioner · 1,469 votes
77%
First Amendment · 79 votes
79%
lower court liberal · 699 votes
2 / 22
questions at Chiles / Salazar
Chiles ✓
Sonia Sotomayor
Democratic appointee · since OT2009

Justice Sotomayor generally supports government regulation in areas of public health and safety, and she has often deferred to legislative judgments in such contexts. Her jurisprudence suggests she might be inclined to view the counseling ban as a legitimate regulation of professional conduct.

61% Salazar61%
for the petitioner · 1,192 votes
48%
First Amendment · 69 votes
48%
lower court liberal · 560 votes
18 / 5
questions at Chiles / Salazar
Chiles ✗
Elena Kagan
Democratic appointee · since OT2010

Justice Kagan often seeks to balance individual rights with governmental interests, and she has shown a nuanced approach to free speech cases, sometimes deferring to regulations in professional contexts. Her decision may hinge on how clearly the Court defines the line between speech and conduct in this professional setting.

56% Chiles63%
for the petitioner · 1,072 votes
63%
First Amendment · 62 votes
51%
lower court liberal · 495 votes
16 / 4
questions at Chiles / Salazar
Chiles ✓
Neil M. Gorsuch
Republican appointee · since OT2016

Justice Gorsuch is a textualist and originalist who often champions individual liberties, including free speech and religious freedom, against government overreach. He has a strong record of protecting expressive rights and is likely to be skeptical of a law that restricts specific viewpoints in counseling.

71% Chiles65%
for the petitioner · 592 votes
78%
First Amendment · 37 votes
75%
lower court liberal · 278 votes
17 / 20
questions at Chiles / Salazar
Chiles ✓
Brett M. Kavanaugh
Republican appointee · since OT2018

Justice Kavanaugh often takes a pragmatic approach, seeking to apply established precedents while also protecting constitutional rights. He has shown a concern for religious liberty and free speech, and his analysis will likely focus on whether the Colorado law is a content-based restriction on speech.

71% Chiles69%
for the petitioner · 498 votes
79%
First Amendment · 34 votes
77%
lower court liberal · 235 votes
silentChiles ✓
Amy Coney Barrett
Republican appointee · since OT2020

Justice Barrett is an originalist who often emphasizes the importance of religious freedom and free speech. She has expressed concerns about government regulations that impinge on these rights, and she is likely to view the Colorado law as a significant restriction on expressive conduct.

71% Chiles66%
for the petitioner · 360 votes
75%
First Amendment · 24 votes
76%
lower court liberal · 168 votes
7 / 11
questions at Chiles / Salazar
Chiles ✓
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Democratic appointee · since OT2022

Justice Jackson generally supports government's ability to regulate professions for public welfare and has often shown deference to legislative intent. Her jurisprudence suggests she might be inclined to view the counseling ban as a permissible regulation of professional conduct rather than a free speech violation.

68% Salazar59%
for the petitioner · 244 votes
67%
First Amendment · 15 votes
38%
lower court liberal · 108 votes
36 / 6
questions at Chiles / Salazar
Salazar ✓

Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the served model, which also reads the bench-wide transcript signal and how long each side held the podium.

Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-02.