À PROPOS DE CET ÉPISODE
Should Conversion Therapy Be Protected Speech? What Chiles v. Salazar Means for Conversion Therapy Bans and the Future of the Profession
In Chiles v. Salazar, the Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 that a therapist's talk therapy is protected speech, putting state conversion therapy bans at risk.
Curt Widhalm, LMFT, and Katie Vernoy, LMFT break down what the March 31, 2026 decision actually says, what it does not say, and what it means for therapists who work with LGBTQ+ clients. The Court did not call conversion therapy safe, effective, or ethical, and it did not make the practice mandatory. It treated talk therapy as speech rather than regulable conduct, and sent Colorado's ban back to the lower courts for stricter First Amendment review.
Curt and Katie walk through the strict scrutiny test at the center of the case, the Kagan and Sotomayor concurrence, and Justice Jackson's dissent, then sit with the harder question: what happens to the profession when the state can no longer set a guardrail on harmful practice before harm has occurred. Released during Pride Month, this is a candid, values-forward conversation about protecting LGBTQ+ clients and practicing affirming, anti-conversion-therapy care out loud.
In this episode, we discuss:
- What the Chiles v. Salazar ruling does, and does not, change about conversion therapy bans
- Why the Court treated talk therapy as protected speech instead of medical treatment
- How the strict scrutiny test decided the case
- Where the concurrence and the dissent point the profession next
- Concrete ways to signal affirming, anti-conversion-therapy care in your practice
Full show notes and resources: mtsgpodcast.com
Join the Modern Therapist Community
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/mtsgpodcast
Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/therapyreimagined
Modern Therapist's Survival Guide Creative Credits
Voice Over by DW McCann: https://www.facebook.com/McCannDW/
Music by Crystal Grooms Mangano: https://groomsymusic.com/
