Colorado counselor can sue before the state enforces its ban

The Tenth Circuit said Kaley Chiles can keep pressing her First Amendment challenge before Colorado enforces its conversion-therapy ban against her. The court said standing in First Amendment cases is treated with some leniency, and it concluded that Chiles has standing to bring the case. So the lawsuit stays alive at the courthouse door instead of ending before the state has taken action.

The courthouse door opens early

That timing rule matters because speech cases often turn on whether a law chills people before anyone is punished. The Tenth Circuit said that leniency is meant to facilitate pre-enforcement suits, the kind brought before a law is enforced, so people do not have to wait for penalties to land before seeking review.

In this case, the court did not decide whether Colorado’s ban is constitutional. It only said Chiles has enough of a legal foothold to keep going, which leaves the underlying First Amendment fight in place.

What stays in the case

For Chiles, the practical effect is simple: her challenge survives for now. For other licensed counselors in Colorado, the ruling shows that early constitutional challenges can get into court even when the state has not yet enforced the rule against a particular person.

The decision was filed Sept. 12, 2024, in Chiles v. Salazar. It does not resolve the merits of the conversion-therapy ban, but it keeps the case moving toward that question.