Amicus Curiae Brief — Kaley Chiles, Petitioner v. Patty Salazar, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, et al.

No. 24-539

IN THE

Supreme Court

of the United States

___________

KALEY CHILES,

Petitioner,

v.

PATTY SALAZAR, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT

OF REGULATORY AGENCIES, ET AL.,

Respondents.

_________________________________

On a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of

Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

_________________________________

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE

CHANGED MOVEMENT IN SUPPORT OF

PETITIONER

_________________________________

SAMUEL J. SALARIO, JR.

Counsel of Record

LAWSON HUCK GONZALEZ

1700 South MacDill Ave.

Suite 240

Tampa, FL 33629

(813) 765-5113

samuel@lawsonhuckgonzalez.com

ANTHONY J. SIRVEN

BRIAN M. TRUJILLO

LAWSON HUCK GONZALEZ

121 Alhambra Plaza

Floor No. 10

Miami, FL 33134

(850) 825-4334

anthony@lawsonhuckgonzalez.com

brian@lawsonhuckgonzalez.com

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

June 13, 2025

LEGAL PRINTERS LLC ! Washington, DC ! 202-747-2400 ! legalprinters.com

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Table of Authorities .................................................... ii

Interest of the Amicus Curiae .................................... 1

Summary of the Argument ......................................... 2

Argument .................................................................... 3

I.

Colorado’s law unconstitutionally prohibits

counselors from counseling their patients

within the spiritual and moral framework those

patients chose. .................................................. 3

II.

The real—and successful—stories of people

who’ve freely chosen to undergo counselling

precisely because of their spiritual and moral

convictions, even as minors. ............................ 7

Conclusion ................................................................. 12

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Page

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis,

600 U.S. 570 (2023) ............................................. 3, 5, 6

Cohen v. California,

403 U.S. 15 (1971) ....................................................... 3

Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium,

Inc. v. FCC,

518 U.S. 727 (1996) ..................................................... 5

Nat’l Ass’n for Advancement of Colored People v.

Button,

371 U.S. 415 (1963) ..................................................... 5

Nat’l Inst. of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra,

585 U.S. 755 (2018) ..................................................... 5

Otto v. City of Boca Raton, Florida,

981 F.3d 854 (11th Cir. 2020)..................................... 6

Stanley v. Georgia,

394 U.S. 557 (1969) ..................................................... 2

Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC,

512 U.S. 622 (1994) ................................................... 12

W. Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette,

319 U.S. 624 (1943) ..................................................... 6

iii

CONSTITUTIONAL AND

STATUTORY PROVISIONS

U.S. Constitution, First Amendment ........... 2, 3, 6, 12

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12-245–224 ..................................... 5

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Austin Rogers, Free Exercise Atrophy: Why Avoiding

Religion Weakens The First Amendment (October 02,

2024), FLA. L. REV. (Forthcoming) ........................... 12

Holy Bible 1 Corinthians ............................................ 6

Holy Bible Galatians .................................................. 6

Holy Bible John ....................................................... 3-4

Holy Bible 1 Timothy .................................................. 6

Lila Rose, The Cause of Same-Sex Attraction

w/Michael Gasparro | Lila Rose Podcast E160,

YouTube (Nov. 5, 2024) .............................................. 9

Tyler O’Neill, SPLC Smears Another Christian

Nonprofit, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (June 11,

2025) ............................................................................ 4

1

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE 1

CHANGED Movement is a community of friends

who once identified as LGBTQ+ and exchanged that

identity for a Christian one. It was formed in response

to California legislation based on the idea that no one

who experiences unwanted sexual desires or confusion

about gender can change, even if they sincerely desire

it. To raise awareness, the founders of CHANGED

Movement published a book of personal stories by

people who wanted and achieved that change. That

advocacy gave rise to an international network of

others who had done the same.

CHANGED Movement believes that while many

who question their sexual orientation or gender

identity embrace an LGBTQ+ identity, many don’t,

and, after a period of self-reflection, embrace sexual

identities aligned with the Christian faith. CHANGED

Movement advocates for the freedom of speech,

religion, and conscience of those who confront these

issues: the right to examine one’s sexuality or gender

without government intrusion. It does so primarily in

the same way it does in this brief—namely, by sharing

personal stories and witness accounts that give hope

to those examining their LGBTQ+ identity and

compassionate input to officials who address issues at

the intersection of LGBTQ+ identity and Christian

belief.

CHANGED Movement files this brief because it has

a strong interest in advocating for those who seek to

question their identity authentically and without

1 No counsel for any party authored this brief in whole or in

part, and no entity or person, aside from amicus and its counsel,

made any monetary contribution toward the preparation or

submission of this brief.

2

restriction and defending freedom of speech, religion,

and conscience for all people.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

Again overstepping constitutional boundaries,

Colorado now claims the power “to control the moral

content of a person’s thoughts”—a power the First

Amendment flatly denies it. Stanley v. Georgia, 394

U.S. 557, 565 (1969). Through a law that censors

conversations between counselors and young people

that depart from Colorado’s crabbed vision of

sexuality, it pretends an individual’s thoughts of

same-sex attraction or having a “gender” at war with

the biological fact of sex are categorical goods no young

person could freely elect to change. Colorado also

pretends that restricting conversations between

counselors and young people to a narrow stateimposed message—duckspeak “affirmance” of samesex attraction and transgenderism—categorically

assures the wellbeing of young people who have such

thoughts.

Through their lived experiences, members of the

CHANGED Movement community know that each of

these pretenses is false. As the following testimonies

of just a few show, real people living their Christian

faith have dramatically improved their lives by

choosing to have the exact conversations the Colorado

law bans. Offering real-life counterpoints to Colorado’s

claimed monopoly on thought about sexual morality,

their experiences vividly illustrate the individual and

social good that results when an individual freely

chooses to get off a path they’ve determined is neither

desired nor good, when measured against the life they

want to lead instead of the life the orthodoxy of

“affirmance” chooses for them. None of these hopeful

3

stories of changed lives would have been possible

under Colorado’s law.

The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment is

central to the freedom of Americans to choose the lives

they want to live. It “protect[s] the freedom to think as

you will and speak as you think,” 303 Creative LLC v.

Elenis, 600 U.S. 570, 584 (2023) (cleaned up), precisely

because “no other approach would comport with the

premise of individual dignity and choice” central to a

free society. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24

(1971). Individuals seek counseling because they want

change. And by cutting young Christians off from

conversations about changing thoughts of same-sex

attraction or gender incongruity with the agents of

change they selected—i.e., the counselors Colorado

now forces to speak only a message of unquestioning

“affirmance”—Colorado denies counselors and young

people alike the dignity and choice the Constitution

guarantees.

ARGUMENT

I.

Colorado’s

law

unconstitutionally

prohibits counselors from counseling

their patients within the spiritual and

moral framework those patients chose.

“Jesus . . . said to them, ‘Let the one among you who

is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her[.]’” 2

Many of us are familiar with the story re-told by the

Apostle John, about “a woman caught in adultery”

whom Christ saves from condemnation after “the

scribes and the Pharisees” brought her before a crowd

who urged that the law “commanded [them] to stone

such women.” 3 The first part of this teaching, where

2 John 8:6–11 (NABRE).

3 John 8:3–6 (NABRE).

4

Christ rhetorically invites those without sin to cast the

first stone, is often what’s quoted if not remembered

most. But what Christ tells the woman next is just as

important, even if remembered or quoted less often:

“Go [and] from now on do not sin any more.” 4

Christ’s call to refrain from sin is one that faithful

Christians face every day. Often it requires help from

other believers, who Christianity likewise challenges

to offer help with gentleness and humility. 5 Members

of the CHANGED Movement community accept both

challenges—seeking and rendering help with the

unique

challenges

of

living

the

Christian

understanding of human sexuality.

Obviously, not everyone—perhaps not even most—

who struggle with thoughts of same-sex attraction or

gender incongruity accept Christian convictions on

those subjects. Like Colorado—which denigrates the

discussion of these convictions as “conversion

therapy”—many doubtless condemn these viewpoints

as abhorrent or hateful. 6 The right to hold and express

those views is their right as Americans. And for

Christians, denigration of their beliefs—both official

and public—is unfortunately a fact of life, as John

points out later in his Gospel. 7

4 John 8:11 (NABRE) (alteration in original & emphasis added).

5 See, e.g., Galatians 6:1–2 (NABRE) (“Brothers, even if a

person is caught in some transgression, you who are spiritual

should correct that one in a gentle spirit, looking to yourself, so

that you also may not be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens,

and so you will fulfill the law of Christ.”).

6 See, e.g., Tyler O’Neill, SPLC Smears Another Christian

Nonprofit, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (June 11, 2025),

https://bit.ly/4kLGaG8.

7 John 15:18–19 (NABRE) (“If the world hates you, realize that

it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would

love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I

have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you.”).

5

But Christians who live their faith unquestionably

enjoy the “right to speak [their] mind[s] regardless of

whether the government considers [their] speech

sensible and well intentioned or deeply misguided and

likely to cause anguish or incalculable grief.” 303

Creative, 600 U.S. at 586 (cleaned up). Yet by banning

conversations between counselors and young people

who seek to change their thoughts of same-sex

attraction or gender incongruity, this is precisely what

Colorado has done. It has made those conversations

“prohibited activities,” which could result in licensure

forfeitures, civil penalties and, eventually, even

criminal ones as well. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12-245–224.

Colorado’s law thus targets Christians who, like

members of the CHANGED Movement community,

don’t accept mainstream attitudes about human

sexuality. It forecloses the Christian teenager (or the

parent of one) who believes acting out on their

sexuality puts their soul in peril and wants help from

a licensed professional who shares those convictions

from obtaining it. The Colorado law is not a regulation

of so-called “professional speech”: 8 It is a blanket

prohibition against conversations between counselors

and young people about shared religious faith. Cf.

Nat’l Ass’n for Advancement of Colored People v.

Button, 371 U.S. 415, 439 (1963) (“For a State may not,

under the guise of prohibiting professional

misconduct, ignore constitutional rights.”).

8 Nat’l Inst. of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755,

767 (2018) (“[T]his Court has not recognized ‘professional speech’

as a separate category of speech. Speech is not unprotected

merely because it is uttered by ‘professionals.’ This Court has

‘been reluctant to mark off new categories of speech for

diminished constitutional protection.’” (quoting Denver Area Ed.

Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727, 804

(1996))).

6

For example, if a Christian counselor were to discuss

with a young person Bible verses that condemn samesex acts—like 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 9 or 1 Timothy 1:8–

11 10—he or she would violate this law. Or had a

Christian patient (like those described below) asked

the counselor who treated them whether out-ofwedlock, same-sex acts were in line with their

Christian faith, the counselor either would’ve needed

to act as if they didn’t hear the question, or—worse—

lie. Even though these Biblical sentiments may be

deeply offensive to some, the First Amendment does

not condone forcing that choice. See, e.g., 303 Creative,

600 U.S. at 596 (emphasizing that “the First

Amendment does not tolerate” a government “forc[ing]

an individual to ‘utter what is not in [her] mind’ about

a question of political and religious significance”

(quoting W. Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette,

319 U.S. 624, 634 (1943))); see also Otto v. City of Boca

Raton, Florida, 981 F.3d 854, 859 (11th Cir. 2020)

(“We understand and appreciate that the therapy is

highly controversial. But the First Amendment has no

carveout for controversial speech.”).

9 “[N]either fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy

prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor

drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of

God. That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had

yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the

name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” 1

Corinthians 6:9–11 (NABRE).

10 “We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also

know that the law is made not for the righteous but for

lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and

irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for

murders, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing

homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for

whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to

the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he

entrusted to me.” 1 Timothy 1:8–11 (NABRE).

7

Put simply, Colorado has effectively made it

unlawful for Christian counselors to read or discuss

scripture with young people, even when that is what

they desire. That cannot stand.

II.

The real—and successful—stories of

people who’ve freely chosen to undergo

counselling precisely because of their

spiritual and moral convictions, even as

minors.

The practical danger of Colorado’s law is best

demonstrated by the real testimonies from real people

who have benefited from the talk therapy Colorado

muzzles. Some of them, for that matter, credit

precisely this therapy as having “saved” them—in both

a literal and spiritual sense.

Michael Gasparro

Michael, a devout Christian teenager, sought

counseling at age fourteen (and again at seventeen)

after confessing his struggles with unwanted sexual

desires to a priest during confession. Deeply rooted in

his faith, he believed that acting on these attractions

conflicted with his Christian convictions and

voluntarily pursued therapy to align his life with what

he saw as God’s plan. During their sessions, Michael’s

counselor respected his beliefs, discussing Biblical

views on sexual ethics that Michael found essential for

understanding Christian doctrine on sexuality. This

faith-based approach went beyond symptom

management, addressing root issues like anxiety,

obsessive-compulsive disorder, and depression, and

provided him with relief, hope, and a sense of being

loved and supported.

Michael’s counseling was not just about his

attractions; it was a holistic process that honored his

8

desire to live according to his Catholic values. He felt

that embracing unwanted, same-sex attractions would

have spiritual consequences, clashing with his core

belief that such actions were wrong, and he sought

help to pursue a life consistent with being Catholic.

Now a marriage and family counselor himself, Michael

reflects on how vital it was that his counselor could

freely discuss scripture and faith-based perspectives,

something he believes minors and adults alike should

have the right to access.

Had Colorado’s law been in effect, Michael’s

counselor would have been barred from engaging in

these conversations and even quoting or discussing

certain Bible verses for fear of violating the law. This

restriction would have silenced the religious speech

central to his healing, denying him the support he

needed and, specifically, wanted.

A counselor now himself, Michael warns against

State efforts “to minimize the legitimacy of a

conversation with a professional about [unwantedsexual-desire] issues” and the irony in pretending that

“everything’s on the table to discuss with your

therapist, except this issue now.” 11 He further warns

against the “push towards trying to criminalize or

penalize any therapy that does not, in lock step, go

along with LGTB ideology and ‘gender-affirming

care.’” Ibid.

The chilling effect these laws have is easy to see in

Michael’s case as he does not treat “anyone under

eighteen in [his] therapy practice to protect [himself]

from any kind of potential accusation that [he] is doing

something that would violate” California’s equivalent

11 Lila Rose, The Cause of Same-Sex Attraction w/Michael

Gasparro | Lila Rose Podcast E160, YouTube (Nov. 5, 2024),

https://bit.ly/4kAscXf.

9

of Colorado’s prohibition. Ibid. “Therapists,” he

continues, “[are] afraid of doing anything other than

what [the states] are gonna call gender-affirming care

or gay-affirming therapy[.]” Ibid.

Ken Williams

Ken Williams’s journey with counseling began at

seventeen, during a time of profound despair.

Struggling with sexual desires that clashed with his

deeply held Christian beliefs, Ken found himself in a

state of hopelessness so severe that he contemplated

suicide. “The internal conflict . . . had created such

profound hopelessness and depression that suicide

seemed like the only escape,” he recalls. It wasn’t until

he confided in his youth pastor—who facilitated a

conversation with his parents—that Ken found the

courage to seek professional counseling. As it turned

out, Ken’s father had been seeing a counselor himself

and had invited Ken to visit him as well. Ken seized

the opportunity, driven by his own desire for healing.

“This was entirely my choice—no one forced me into

counseling,” he stressed.

Ken’s weekly sessions with that counselor, a

Christian psychologist, spanned five years and became

“the cornerstone of [his] healing process.” And because

Ken’s counselor “was a Christian professional,” that

provided Ken “with the only safe space [he] had on the

planet to unload the overwhelming shame, fear, and

self-hatred that had been consuming [him].”

Integrating cognitive-behavioral techniques with

faith-based discussions, Ken recalls: “[We] regularly

discussed Christianity, Christian principles, different

passages of scripture, and how well I was living out my

Christian faith.” He further stressed the value in his

counselor’s “point[ing] [ ] towards the Biblical reality

that God extends grace to people for their mistakes

10

and sins, and that divine forgiveness was available to

[him].” “Perhaps even more importantly,” Ken

emphasized, “he helped me learn to forgive myself—

something I didn’t even know was possible or

necessary.” Ken “began to believe that Jesus paid the

price for [his] sins, even sexual ones, that He forgave

those sins and that He wanted [him] to forgive

[himself] and move on in [his] relationship with Him,”

Ken began to embrace God’s grace and forgive

himself—key steps in overcoming his state of

depression and self-loathing.

The counselor who helped Ken worked not only with

him but, just as importantly, with his family as well.

With guidance by a professional counselor who shared

their faith, Ken’s parents began working alongside

them as part of Ken’s path toward healing.

For Ken, the impact was undeniable: “Counseling

didn’t just improve my life—it saved my life.” He

credits the process with equipping him to build

healthier relationships and ultimately pursue the life

he wanted—one rooted in his Christian faith. Today,

Ken is a co-founder of the CHANGED Movement and

shares his testimony because, in his words: “Every

young person deserves access to supportive,

professional help that aligns with their values and

goals, especially when they are actively seeking such

assistance.” He is also troubled by the realization that,

“If I had lived under this Colorado law, I believe that I

would not have received counseling adequate to

overcome my suicidal ideation and hopelessness; let

alone to help me in all the incredible ways I’ve

described in my story.”

Marco Casanova

Marco, a twenty-three-year-old seminary student

training to become a Catholic priest, entered

11

counseling to confront his struggles with unwanted

sexual desires and a pornography addiction that had

led to anonymous homosexual encounters. Motivated

by his Christian faith, he sought therapy voluntarily

in 2016 to address behaviors he viewed as spiritually

and personally destructive, aiming to integrate his life

with his religious convictions.

The counseling proved transformative for Marco,

enabling him to stop acting out on unwanted sexual

impulses, maintain chastity, and reduce the anxiety

from living a compartmentalized life. He came to see

his unwanted sexual desires as part of his story but

not its entirety, understanding it as tied to deeper

issues rather than his defining identity. This process,

grounded in his faith, enabled him to identify a

pathway towards peaceful resolution in his inner

conflict. This led to his decision to leave seminary

while committing his life to another Christian

ministry—Living Waters—where he eventually met

his wife, who would soon carry their child. Marco

credits his success to the therapy that not only

respected the presence of his spiritual tension, but

fundamentally and substantively understood it such

that it could serve as the foundation for change.

Under Colorado’s law, a counselor like the one who

helped Marco would have been prohibited from doing

so had the patient been younger than eighteen, even if

the patient’s hope for change were rooted in Biblical

beliefs.

***

Not one of the counselors who helped Michael, Ken,

or Marco make such profound and beneficial changes

could have done so had they been subject to Colorado’s

law. (And that’s to say nothing about the countless

others who benefitted from the same or similar

12

therapy as well.) So, this presents not just a freespeech issue—but a suppression of religious speech

altogether. 12

Central to the First Amendment’s force is “the

principle that each person should decide for himself or

herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression,

consideration, and adherence.” Turner Broad. Sys.,

Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 641 (1994). Yet Colorado has

silenced a set of content it maintains the First

Amendment’s promises do not reach—even if it stems

directly from shared religious faith. This, however, is

precisely what the First Amendment has long said a

state cannot do.

CONCLUSION

The decision below should be reversed.

Austin Rogers, Free Exercise Atrophy: Why Avoiding

Religion Weakens The First Amendment (October 02, 2024), FLA.

L. REV. (Forthcoming), https://bit.ly/4jSxjRF (explaining why the

Court’s resolution of speech cases that, ultimately, turn on the

exercise of religion are better resolved under the free-exercise

clause).

12

13

Respectfully submitted,

SAMUEL J. SALARIO, JR.

Counsel of Record

LAWSON HUCK

GONZALEZ

1700 South MacDill Ave.

Suite 240

Tampa, FL 33629

(813) 765-5113

samuel@lawsonhuckgonzalez.com

ANTHONY J. SIRVEN

BRIAN M. TRUJILLO

LAWSON HUCK

GONZALEZ

121 Alhambra Plaza

Floor No. 10

Miami, FL 33134

(850) 825-4334

anthony@lawsonhuckgonzalez.com

brian@lawsonhuckgonzalez.com

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

June 13, 2025