Chiles v. Salazar: Difference between revisions
(background) |
|||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
==Oral argument== | ==Oral argument== | ||
===Audio=== | ===Audio=== | ||
Audio of the | Audio of oral argument:<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-539 ''Supreme Court of the United States'', "Oral Argument - Audio," argued October 7, 2025]</ref><br/> | ||
<html><audio controls><source src="https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/24-539.mp3" type="audio/mpeg">Your browser doesn't support the audio tag.</audio></html><br> | |||
<br> | |||
===Transcript=== | ===Transcript=== | ||
Transcript of oral argument:<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-539_3f14.pdf ''Supreme Court of the United States'', "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued October 7, 2025]</ref><br/> | |||
<pdf width="500" height="500">File:Chiles v. Salazar transcript.pdf</pdf> | |||
==Outcome== | ==Outcome== | ||
Latest revision as of 14:46, 8 October 2025

| Chiles v. Salazar | |
| Docket number: 24-539 | |
| Term: 2025 | |
| Court: United States Supreme Court | |
| Important dates | |
| Argued: October 7, 2025 | |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson | |
Chiles v. Salazar is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on October 7, 2025, during the court's October 2025-2026 term.
The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.
Background
Case summary
The following are the parties to this case:[2]
- Petitioner: Kaley Chiles
- Legal counsel: James A. Campbell (Alliance Defending Freedom), John J. Bursch (Alliance Defending Freedom)
- Respondent: Patty Salazar, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies
- Legal counsel: Shannon Wells Stevenson (Colorado Department of Law)
The following summary of the case was published by Oyez, a free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and the Chicago-Kent College of Law:[3]
| “ |
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.[4] |
” |
To learn more about this case, see the following:
- Supreme Court of the United States
- SCOTUSblog case file for Chiles v. Salazar
- Oyez case file for Chiles v. Salazar
- Colorado House Bill 19-1129
- Colorado Revised Statutes § 12-245-224, from Justia
Timeline
The following timeline details key events in this case:
- October 7, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
- March 10, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
- November 8, 2024: Kaley Chiles appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- September 12, 2024: The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
Questions presented
The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[1]
Questions presented:
|
Oral argument
Audio
Audio of oral argument:[5]
Transcript
Transcript of oral argument:[6]
Outcome
The case is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.
October term 2025-2026
The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 6, 2025. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions by mid-June.[7]
See also
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- U.S. Supreme Court docket file - Chiles v. Salazar (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
- SCOTUSblog case file for Chiles v. Salazar
- Oyez case file for Chiles v. Salazar
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "24-539 CHILES V. SALAZAR QP", March 10, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 24-539 Chiles v. Salazar" accessed September 24, 2025
- ↑ Oyez, "Chiles v. Salazar", accessed September 24, 2025
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued October 7, 2025
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued October 7, 2025
- ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022