What Chiles v. Salazar Means for the Troubled Teen Industry
On March 31, 2026, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Chiles v. Salazar, a ruling that could have significant consequences for children all over the country.
The case centered on Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor in Colorado Springs who challenged her state’s ban on conversion therapy for minors. The Court ruled 8-1 that Colorado’s law, as applied to talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint and therefore warrants strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.
In practical terms, this means states must now meet an extremely high legal bar to justify restricting what a licensed therapist can say to a client, a bar that most laws don’t clear.
The ruling holds that a counselor shouldn’t lose her license for having certain conversations with clients. On its face, that may sound narrow and reasonable. But once you look at where these conversations actually happen, and to whom, the implications become considerably broader.
The troubled teen industry is rarely a place of voluntary clients having autonomous conversations. It is an industry built on compulsion. Children are transported in the middle of the night and placed in wilderness programs, therapeutic boarding schools, and residential treatment centers by parents who have been told their child needs to be fixed. Many of those kids are LGBTQ+, and many of those programs have historically made the conversion of identity, behavior, and belief a core part of their model. The line between counseling and coercion in these settings has always been difficult to maintain. This decision has made it harder.
The immediate practical effect is substantial. Conversion therapy bans existed over 23 states before this ruling, the product of years of advocacy, documented harm, and broad scientific consensus. After this ruling existing bans may now face significant legal challenges.
But the implications extend well beyond conversion therapy. A statement from the American Psychological Association reads: “We are disappointed that the Court has left a core legal question unresolved: whether states can regulate what licensed mental health professionals say to their patients in a clinical session.”
If therapy is defined as speech, and that speech receives full First Amendment protection, then states face a dramatically harder task when it comes to protecting children from harmful therapeutic practices.
After this decision, that is no longer clear. For children who are placed in these programs without their consent, isolated from outside contact, and told that compliance is the price of going home, that loss is not a legal abstraction.
It is a lived reality.
What Chiles v. Salazar Means for the Troubled Teen Industry
On March 31, 2026, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Chiles v. Salazar, a ruling that could have significant consequences for children all over the country.
The case centered on Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor in Colorado Springs who challenged her state’s ban on conversion therapy for minors. The Court ruled 8-1 that Colorado’s law, as applied to talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint and therefore warrants strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.
In practical terms, this means states must now meet an extremely high legal bar to justify restricting what a licensed therapist can say to a client, a bar that most laws don’t clear.
To understand what is at stake, it helps to understand what conversion therapy actually is and where it has lived. Conversion therapy is an umbrella term for a set of harmful, widely condemned interventions that attempt to alter a person’s sexual orientation or how they experience and express their gender identity. Practitioners have employed techniques ranging from aversive conditioning to behavioral and cognitive approaches, all grounded in the assumption that any non-heterosexual, non-cisgender identity is a disorder that can and should be changed. Every major medical and mental health organization in the country has rejected that premise entirely.
The practice is not new. A 2023 report by The Trevor Project identified more than 1,300 conversion therapy practitioners operating across 48 states, nearly half of whom hold active professional licenses. Researchers estimate that 698,000 LGBT adults have been subjected to it, including roughly 350,000 who experienced it as minors, and youth who underwent conversion therapy were more than twice as likely to report a suicide attempt in the past year.
Conversion therapy has been an inherent part of the troubled teen industry for decades. The industry learned early that it could profit from parents who had been told their child’s identity was the problem, and it has never stopped. What has changed is the packaging. Over time, programs have reframed conversion practices in the language of spiritual healing, mental health, and religious liberty, with such practices documented even inside facilities that publicly claim to be LGBTQ+ affirming.
The ruling holds that a counselor shouldn’t lose her license for having certain conversations with clients. On its face, that may sound narrow and reasonable. But once you look at where these conversations actually happen, and to whom, the implications become considerably broader.
The troubled teen industry is rarely a place of voluntary clients having autonomous conversations. It is an industry built on compulsion. Children are transported in the middle of the night and placed in wilderness programs, therapeutic boarding schools, and residential treatment centers by parents who have been told their child needs to be fixed. Many of those kids are LGBTQ+, and many of those programs have historically made the conversion of identity, behavior, and belief a core part of their model. The line between counseling and coercion in these settings has always been difficult to maintain. This decision has made it harder.
The immediate practical effect is substantial. Conversion therapy bans existed over 23 states before this ruling, the product of years of advocacy, documented harm, and broad scientific consensus.
After this ruling existing bans may now face significant legal challenges.
That progress did not come easily. Advocates spent years building a legislative record state by state, presenting lawmakers with survivor testimony, peer-reviewed research, and the formal positions of every credible medical body in the country. The resulting bans were the product of a hard-fought public health argument that some harms are serious enough to override a practitioner’s preference for a particular therapeutic approach. This ruling puts that argument back in court.
It is worth noting how incomplete that protection already was. Existing bans applied only to licensed therapists and not to clergy or unlicensed counselors, meaning that even before this decision, minors in protected states could still be subjected to conversion therapy through religious or unregulated channels. The TTI has long exploited that gap, labeling conversion-adjacent practices as behavioral modification or wilderness therapy to sidestep state restrictions. Now, the licensed therapy context, the one arena where bans had real teeth, is legally contested as well.
Bottom Line
This ruling signals, in practical terms, that navigating the legal landscape for the LGBTQ youth in these programs is now narrower and less protected than it was a week ago. The gains that survivors and advocates fought for have not disappeared, but they are now subject to litigation in ways they were not before. For programs that were already finding workarounds, the Court has made the workarounds easier to defend.
But the implications extend well beyond conversion therapy. A statement from the American Psychological Association reads: “We are disappointed that the Court has left a core legal question unresolved: whether states can regulate what licensed mental health professionals say to their patients in a clinical session.”
If therapy is defined as speech, and that speech receives full First Amendment protection, then states face a dramatically harder task when it comes to protecting children from harmful therapeutic practices.
After this decision, it is no longer clear. For children who are placed in programs without their consent, isolated from outside contact, and told that compliance is the price of going home, that loss is not a legal abstraction.
It is a lived reality.
Unsilenced Leadership Team
Unsilenced Leadership Team
If you’d like to be part of the Unsilenced team fill out a Volunteer Interest form in the “Join the Fight” tab at the top of the page.