Conversion Therapy: The Supreme Court Decides. Part I.

Philosopher Patrick Deneen observes Americans live in an era filled with a rising tide of demanding voices. These clamorous voices assert two things: (1) human progress is inevitable; and (2) leading participants in progressive social movements will always be victimized and harmed by oppression from traditionalists. 

This pattern exposes Christian believers to the contention that they are oppressors and Neanderthals. This move is part of a relentless attack by progressives who are often indistinguishable from elites.

Two Supreme Court cases, Masterpiece Bakeshop and Mahmoud v. Taylor, illustrate this troubling pattern. In Masterpiece Bakeshop, invovling a bakery owned and operated by Jack Phillips, a devout Christian, the Court upheld Phillips’ right to decline to create a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage. 

In Mahmoud, the Court upheld parents’ religious free exercise rights against a Montgomery County Board of Education policy, which mandated that children be indoctrinated in a LGBTQ+ inclusive curriculum. Most believers—but not all—welcomed these two decisions.

Both Supreme Court decisions make clear that religious individuals and parents have First Amendment rights to object to specific messages sought by individuals and groups who claim to be victimized. Nonetheless, defenders of the Free Exercise of Religion have come under continuous threat. 

Such assaults raise the question of whether churches, religious institutions, parents, and individuals are prepared to respond to these attacks. Now there is a new issue for Christians to consider. 

On October 7, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar. Despite empirical evidence showing a decline in trans and queer identity among young Americans, this case places the conversion therapy issue on center stage. It pits the rights of a religious individual against the interests of activists.

Conversion therapy ostensibly involves talking or engaging in behavioral techniques that are designed “to change an individual's sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual or to change their gender expression.” This is not an isolated issue since “[m]ore than 20 states have laws barring minors from undergoing conversion therapy.”  

In Chiles v. Salazar, the legal issue before the Supreme Court concerned whether the Freedom of Speech rights of a Colorado-licensed counselor, Kaley Chiles, trump the state’s attempt to ban conversion therapy. A majority of commentators and a majority of the Supreme Court appear to believe that Colorado’s ban likely discriminates against Chiles’ freedom of expression views, which she articulates in her therapy practice. 

If the Court finds a violation of the Constitution, it could invalidate the law or remand the case back to the lower courts and have them take a closer look at whether Colorado’s law passes constitutional muster.

In Chiles v. Salazar, the licensed counselor who is a practicing Christian, “contends that although she does not try to ‘convert’ her clients, she does try to help them with objectives that may include ‘seeking to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions.’” Despite Chiles’ claims, both the federal district court and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals turned down Chiles' request to bar the state from implementing the ban against her. 

Addressing the Supreme Court, Chiles’ lawyer argued that the state’s ban on conversion therapy wrongly prohibits counselors “from helping minors pursue state-disfavored goals on issues of gender and sexuality.” Arguing for the Trump Administration, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan maintains that the court should strike down the law, mainly because the ban interferes with Chiles’ free speech rights. 

Against such claims, Colorado’s solicitor general stressed that the ban was a “bipartisan law passed in 25 states.” In essence, Colorado contends that it bans conversion therapy because such therapy is a source of harm. This argument mimics the Montgomery School Board’s justification for its decision to prevent parents from excluding their children from sexualized gender presentations. As Justice Sotomayor observes in Mahmoud, the school board’s policy is designed to prevent children from using hurtful language around gay classmates. 

A careful examination of (1) the dispute over Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy and (2) the 2025 Supreme Court decision in the Mahmoud case, pitting parental rights against states’ rights, is instructive. And the force of this examination can be emphasized by considering the defensibility of California’s Assembly Bill 495. 

One observer notes that Assembly Bill 495 endangers children and undermines parents’ God-given authority. California justifies this law by stating that such legislation is necessary to safeguard the rights of illegal alien families.

Taken together, an examination of all three disputes shows that the rights of Christians are under a continuing threat from the spirit of the age. This threat implicates the rights of individuals, parents, churches, and Christian schools. 

This threat prompts a question: are parents, churches, counselors, and religious institutions, including schools, prepared to fight back and defend their institutions? 

But before considering this question, it is essential to note that all of these laws and decisions—from Maryland to Colorado to California—are grounded in a progressive principle. This principle is predicated on preventing harm to favored groups and individuals. 

At the same time, progressives prefer to ignore the constitutional rights of Christians who see freedom of religion as America’s first freedom. Against this backdrop, Patrick Deneen notes that:

“In this era of hushed voices, furtive glances, and underground resistance, it is little wonder that John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty has become an inspiration and a recourse for a new generation. Since its publication in 1859, Mill’s brief on behalf of liberty of speech, opinion, expression, and action has become a rallying philosophy for those experiencing conditions of constraint, limitation, and oppression. …”

Deneen continues by observing that.  

“A century and a half after his death, Mill’s argument on behalf of an ‘atmosphere of freedom,’ limited only when words or actions result in harm, is the governing philosophy of the liberal order.”

And, virtually, all of us have been educated and socialized by Mill’s philosophical invention. Mill’s philosophy inevitably advances the liberal order and diminishes the power of the gospel. That conclusion ought to alarm us all because it is deeply misunderstood. 

Mill’s argument, in favor of freedom of expression, did not favor freedom of expression—including religious freedom—as an end in itself. Instead, his argument is a means to a further end: progressives’ control over all aspects of society, including children and religious institutions. 

This conclusion is underscored by the University of Arizona's recent decision to fire a Christian ethics professor, Daniel Grossenbach, who sought to vindicate parental rights. Mr. Grossenbach used his freedom of expression rights to speak out against a Catalina School District policy, which encouraged teachers to push radical gender ideology secretly and hide gender transition information from parents.

John Stuart Mill sought to dismantle precisely what evangelical Christians have sought to preserve: the nuclear family and the distinction between men and women as biological entities created by God. He also sought to undermine the Christian foundations of Western society, tied to our Christian inheritance, as well as the order that flowed from such ideas and beliefs.

In other words, Mill bequeathed to the West the harm principle to advance and legitimize progressives' domination and control of our future. Unsurprisingly, elites from Massachusetts to Maryland, and from Colorado to California, have accepted Mill’s invitation to destroy Christianity.

If true, the conversion therapy case before the United States Supreme Court is simply another salvo in a spiritual battle that may consume the country. The only remaining question is whether churches, religious schools, and religious institutions are girding themselves for the battle ahead. 

Part II in this series offers insights into a battle that will implicate topics that multiply beyond conversion therapy, including debates over digital ID and transhumanism.