It is not just President Trump who is showing a welcome willingness to challenge the madness of gender ideology. So is the Supreme Court. 

As we speak, in addition to reviewing a Tennessee ban on chemical interventions for minors experiencing gender dysphoria and the refusal of a school board in Maryland to permit parents to opt their young children out of exposure to sexually explicit materials — the court is poised to defend the medical conscience rights of mental health professionals in Chiles v. Salazar. The court’s review presents an opportunity to safeguard both the free speech guarantee of the Constitution and to save our children from progressivism’s most absurd ideology.

This past Monday the Supreme Court agreed to review the challenge brought by Kaley Chiles, a Christian licensed counselor, to a 2019 Colorado law banning “conversion therapy” on minors confused about their “sexual orientation or gender identity.” The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Chiles’ claim that the law unconstitutionally censors her communications with clients in violation of the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee.

Colorado, along with more than 20 left-leaning states and the District of Columbia, prohibits licensed mental health-care providers with patients younger than 18 from engaging in any effort “to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

The Supreme Court declined review of a similar challenge to Washington state’s ban in 2023. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented from the court's decision not to take up that case. 

Under the state law, Thomas wrote in a five-page dissent, “Licensed counselors cannot voice anything other than the state-approved opinion on minors with gender dysphoria without facing punishment.” He added, “Although the court declines to take this particular case, I have no doubt that the issue it presents will come before the court again. When it does, the court should do what it should have done here: grant certiorari to consider what the First Amendment requires.” 

Alito, in a separate dissent, similarly noted, “It is beyond dispute that these laws restrict speech, and all restrictions on speech merit careful scrutiny.”

In her petition for review to the Court, Chiles explains that she is a practicing Christian who “believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God's design, including their biological sex.” She rightly asserts, “Governments do not have a freer hand to regulate speech simply because the speaker is ‘licensed’ or giving ‘specialized advice.’”

Quoting 303 Creative v. Elenis, where the Supreme Court recently vindicated the right of a Christian wedding website designer not to be forced to create websites for same-sex civil weddings, she added that this is not the first time that Colorado “has sought to regulate speech ‘in ways that align with its views but defy [an individual’s] conscience about a matter of major significance.’”

In his Jan. 28 executive order “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” President Trump rejected guidance from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), noting the group’s lack of “scientific integrity.” The president instead directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to “increase the quality of data to guide practices for improving the health of minors with gender dysphoria, rapid-onset gender dysphoria, or other identity-based confusion, or who otherwise seek chemical or surgical mutilation.” 

Trump’s directive to gather data is absolutely necessary, but it will be utterly useless if mental health professionals living in states where conversion bans are in place continue to find themselves muzzled.

All the signs indicate that the new Trump administration, like a growing number of European governments, encourages a “watchful waiting” approach when it comes to the care of young people suffering from gender dysphoria and confusion. This is a welcome change, particularly for those young “detransitioners” who courageously share their stories of remorse and suffering after having pursued so-called “gender-affirming care.”

Such an approach, explained Register columnist Jennifer Roback Morse last year, “surely includes some forms of counseling,” adding that “therapy may allow the client to address other mental-health issues or explore the possible reasons for their discomfort with their bodies.”

Chiles v. Salazar will be reviewed as part of the Supreme Court’s docket for next term. A decision will likely be handed down in the early summer of 2026. We must pray that the tide is finally turning.