Reading Time: 6 minutes
Imagine for a moment that someone is desperately seeking professional help for struggles with same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria. Imagine these individuals—traumatized, broken, and battered, in need of healing—cannot get the help they desire because the law has muzzled and, in effect, verbally imprisoned counselors.
Have you taken your place on the wall?
In 2019, Colorado passed the Minor Conversion Therapy Law, which prohibited licensed mental health professionals from engaging in practices aimed at changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The law allows only affirming approaches to same-sex attraction and gender identity (gender-affirming care), including pushing individuals toward surgery and drugs. Can you imagine that counselors would not be allowed to counsel their clients toward the root of their issues?
During a conference on April 30, 2026, Jeremy Samek, Senior Counsel with the PA Family Institute, explained what led to the breakdown and such suppression of this aspect of freedom of speech. After the 2015 SCOTUS decision to redefine marriage, there were a lot of ordinances and pieces of legislation that were one-sided coming through the governmental systems. This happened in Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, and various other places in Pennsylvania, even against biblical counselors. Independence Law Center fought hard to reverse the unconstitutional mandates in PA.
Samek went on to explain that conversion therapy has often been portrayed in a deceptive way, as if it primarily involves extreme practices like electric shock, physical abuse, or the use of drugs. He said that if the law had targeted those kinds of harmful interventions, it would have been reasonable. However, he contended that such practices were not actually at issue.
Instead, he argued that the law went further by regulating what counselors are allowed to say to their clients—even extending to activities like prayer. Samek explained that Colorado focused on restricting the conversational aspect of counseling, which limits well-intentioned counselors and prevents clients from receiving the support they are seeking.
On March 31, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 8–1 in favor of Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Chiles in the Chiles v. Salazar case. The ruling held that the Colorado law violated the First Amendment. Notably, two of the justices who voted in favor are progressives.
To understand the decision, it helps to look at how courts evaluate laws under different levels of constitutional scrutiny. When the government passes a law that is generally applicable and not aimed at a protected class or a fundamental right, courts apply a lower level of review—often called “rational basis” scrutiny. Under this standard, the law only needs to be reasonably related to a legitimate government interest, and it does not have to be perfectly tailored.
However, when a law directly restricts speech, it is subject to the highest level of review: strict scrutiny. Under strict scrutiny, the government must prove that the law serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest without unnecessarily restricting protected rights.
In this case, because the law implicates free speech, Colorado would need to meet that demanding standard. That means showing both a compelling interest and that the law is precisely designed to address it. This potentially opens the door for further legal challenges to similar state laws.
The case is not fully resolved, as it could return to a lower court where Colorado would have another opportunity to try to meet that burden. However, many legal commentators believe that it is unlikely to succeed.
In the meantime, Colorado has introduced new legislation that takes a different approach. Rather than banning the conduct outright, the proposal would allow individuals to sue counselors if they believe they were harmed, with no statute of limitations. Critics argue that this could still deter certain speech by exposing counselors to long-term legal risk. This legislation is likely to be deemed unconstitutional.
Andrew Rodriguez, a counselor for sexually broken people, shared his story. He was completing a master’s program through Chestnut Hill College, which describes itself as an inclusive Catholic university. Six years prior, he had begun a support group for men struggling with same-sex attraction. He was open about his work with these support groups throughout his time at the college.
He was approximately four weeks away from completing his year-long practicum and internship at a Christian counseling practice when he received an email from the head of the internship program at the school. The email indicated that the school had only then become aware of his leading of these support groups—information that was already available in his file and publicly listed on the Christian counseling site where he was interning.
He received the email on June 25, 2015. The school insisted that Rodriguez meet with them right away. He had been at a conference, and when he returned, the school officials interrogated him. They were most concerned with what he would do once he got his degree and was working in the field. Would he be doing the same type of work surrounding same sex attraction and exploring the potential for change? The school expressed that they felt this was harmful and unethical.
The school asked Rodriguez what he would do if such counseling were to become illegal. He stated that he would respect the client’s right to self-determination. He said he would commit civil disobedience because he knows that was the right thing to do.
The school went on to tell him that he would need to complete another full-year internship elsewhere. The Independence Law Center (ILC) took on Rodriguez’s case.
Legal representation from ILC attended a meeting with the dean of the program, where Rodriguez was told that the only ethical thing to do was to encourage his clients to explore same-sex desire. ILC posed the hypothetical question to them: “What if a catholic priest, who, because of his religious beliefs, doesn’t want to engage in any type of sexual activity…. what if he came and was struggling with any type of pornography, even opposite sex pornography….could he help him?”
Samek said the school immediately saw the logic—that what he would do as a counselor is no different from helping someone abstain from something they believe they should not act on, in this case, based on their religious beliefs. The school then switched gears and began talking about how wonderful pornography could be.
The school went radio silent for months after this meeting, then went throughout Philadelphia to find new internship sites for Rodriguez, but told those sites that the reason Rodriguez needed a new placement was that he was committing unethical practices at his previous internship. Naturally, no one wanted to take him. The school then came back to him and said he needed to be removed from the program, but allowed him to graduate with a lower degree after completing 48 credits in counseling. He was able to transfer the remaining credits to another institution, but was told by Chestnut Hill that he could not transfer the internship credits.
The Christian counseling site allowed him to complete his internship, and Carin University accepted both the internship hours and the transfer of credits from Chestnut Hill College.
He expressed his gratitude to ILC, which, through its legal help, allowed him to complete the few remaining classes required. He then went on to graduate and open his own counseling practice in Pottstown, PA, serving and helping the sexually broken.
While we celebrate these victories, the fight is far from over. We cannot give an inch. We must remain firm in standing up for our God-ordained Constitutional rights. We cannot acquiesce to tyrannical dictates.
I thank God for organizations like the Independence Law Center, Alliance Defending Freedom, First Liberty Institute, the American Center for Law and Justice, Judicial Watch, and others who battle every day for the preservation and protection of our rights and liberties as ordained by God and governed through man.
Let us take the lead from Coach Joe Kennedy, another free speech hero, who, along with his beloved wife, stood firm, refused to back down, and would not step away from the fight—even though it cost them dearly, threatening their marriage and even their lives. Because of their courage, boldness, and faith, not only was his case won, but it also led to the overturning of approximately 7,000 other First Amendment religious freedom and freedom of speech cases.
Father God, we pray for Your boldness, strength, courage, and grace to fight the good fight of faith. Please help us to remain steadfast and firmly fixed on your promises. Thank you for America, the land that you created with liberty and justice for all. Let freedom ring. Let truth and justice be our bulwark. Let your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. In Jesus’ name, Amen.
Share your prayers for free speech below.
(Photo Credit: zimmytws/Getty Images Pro via Canva Teams)
