← Public evidence ledger
The Daily Caller
Article misinformation risk ★★☆☆☆ 2.3/5 Use caution · 2 checked claims

State’s Rule Cracking Down On Christian Gender Counseling Runs Afoul Of Supreme Court Ruling, Group Says

Conservative legal group Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) sued Wisconsin in May on behalf of two Christian counselors, arguing a state administrative rule that limits counseling for children with gender confusion violates the Supreme Court's March decision in Chiles v. Salazar and amounts to viewpoint discrimination.

Open the original The Daily Caller article ↗

Accurate
Public importance 35/100

“In March, the U.S. Supreme Court in Chiles v. Salazar sided 8-1 with Colorado Christian counselor Kaley Chiles, holding Colorado's law curtailed her work by 'regulating speech based on viewpoint.'”

Attributed to Daily Caller News Foundation (reporting on the Supreme Court decision in Chiles v. Salazar)

✓ Proof standard met 5 reachable references Independent-source requirement passed
Original context and attribution

The article states the Court ruled in March for Chiles, characterizing Colorado's law as viewpoint-based regulation of speech and noting Chiles had been required by state law to affirm transgender-identifying children even if they sought help to embrace their biological sex.

What the proof shows

The U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8–1 decision on March 31, 2026 in Chiles v. Salazar holding that Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law, as applied to Kaley Chiles’s talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint and therefore warrants heightened First Amendment scrutiny. The opinion (majority by Justice Gorsuch) explicitly states the law permits “acceptance, support, and understanding” and assistance to persons undergoing gender transition while forbidding attempts to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity — meaning the statute restricts change-oriented speech by licensed counselors. The Court’s holding matches the Daily Caller’s core claim; however, the additional formulation that the law “required” counselors to affirm transgender-identifying children is an oversimplification: the statute forbids change-oriented therapy for minors and allows affirming/supportive practices and incorporates a professional standard of care, but it does not use the word “require” to force specific affirmative language.

Corrected version

On March 31, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court (8–1) held in Chiles v. Salazar that Colorado’s law, as applied to Kaley Chiles’s talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint and must be reviewed under strict scrutiny; the law bans licensed counselors from providing therapy that attempts to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity and explicitly permits acceptance/support and assistance for those undergoing gender transition.

Automated evidence confidence: 0%

References and proof

Every link was reachable when published. Each proof point states how that source bears on the claim.

Court record Supports

Chiles v. Salazar, No. 24–539 (Slip Opinion, Mar. 31, 2026) ↗

Supreme Court of the United States
Proof point

Held: Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy, as applied to Ms. Chiles’s talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint, and the lower courts erred by failing to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny.... The law permits her to express acceptance and support for clients exploring their identity or undergoing gender transition ... but forbids her from saying anything that attempts to change a client’s 'sexual orientation or gender identity.'

Independent reporting Supports

CHILES v. SALAZAR | Supreme Court | US Law (case summary & text) ↗

Legal Information Institute (Cornell)
Proof point

The Court held that, as applied to the counselor’s talk therapy, the Colorado law regulates speech based on viewpoint... The law defines conversion therapy to include any practice or treatment that attempts to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity.

Official data Supports

HB19-1129 Prohibit Conversion Therapy for A Minor (enrolled bill / statute text) ↗

Colorado General Assembly
Proof point

The act prohibits a licensed... mental health care provider from engaging in conversion therapy with a patient under 18 years of age... 'Conversion therapy' means any practice or treatment... that attempts or purports to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity... The law allows 'acceptance, support, and understanding for the facilitation of an individual's coping, social support, and identity exploration and development' and 'assistance to a person undergoing gender transition.'

Official data Contradicts

Colorado Attorney General: Colorado law banning gay conversion therapy is consistent with First Amendment and protects patients from harmful substandard care ↗

Office of the Colorado Attorney General
Proof point

Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law ... is constitutional under the First Amendment because it does not regulate speech, but professional conduct that falls below the standard of care.

Independent reporting Supports

Supreme Court rules against Colorado's conversion therapy ban on First Amendment grounds ↗

CBS News
Proof point

The high court ruled 8-1 that Colorado's law, when applied to talk therapy provided by counselor Kaley Chiles, regulates speech based on viewpoint.

Exaggerated
Public importance 35/100

“WILL argues Wisconsin's administrative rule bans counselors from providing talk therapy to clients struggling with their relationship to their biological sex and instead permits only counseling that directs clients toward sex changes.”

Attributed to Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (quoted in the article)

✓ Proof standard met 5 reachable references Independent-source requirement passed
Original context and attribution

The article attributes to WILL the contention that the Wisconsin rule prohibits certain perspectives in private, voluntary therapy sessions and effectively requires counselors to counsel toward gender transition rather than support clients seeking to align with their biological sex.

What the proof shows

WILL accurately points to Wisconsin Admin. Code § MPSW 20.02(25), which declares as unprofessional conduct “employing or promoting any intervention or method that has the purpose of attempting to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.” ([law.cornell.edu](https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/wisconsin/Wis-Admin-Code-SS-MPSW-20-02?utm_source=openai)) The plaintiffs (WILL) argue that, as written and enforced, the rule forbids faith‑based, change‑directed talk therapy (including efforts to help a client align gender identity with biological sex) and thus chills that speech. ([will-law.org](https://will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/1.-Complaint-Verified-w-Signatures.pdf)) However, the rule itself contains explicit exceptions—e.g., it “does not include counseling that assists a client who is seeking to undergo a gender transition” or “counseling that provides a client with acceptance, support, understanding, or that facilitates a client's ... identity exploration or development”—so it does not literally “permit only counseling that directs clients toward sex changes.” ([law.cornell.edu](https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/wisconsin/Wis-Admin-Code-SS-MPSW-20-02?utm_source=openai)) The Supreme Court’s March 31, 2026 decision in Chiles v. Salazar (addressing Colorado’s similar law) supplies the constitutional backdrop WILL cites: the Court held talk‑only bans must face strict First Amendment scrutiny as viewpoint‑based when applied to speech. ([supremecourt.gov](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-539new_3fb4.pdf?utm_source=openai)) In short: the core of WILL’s claim—that the Wisconsin rule restricts counsel that aims to change sexual orientation or gender identity and can chill faith‑based talk therapy—is supported by the rule text and the complaint, but the article’s stronger wording implying the rule forces counselors to steer clients toward transition (i.e., “permits only counseling that directs clients toward sex changes”) overstates what the text actually says and omits the rule’s explicit exceptions. ([will-law.org](https://will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/1.-Complaint-Verified-w-Signatures.pdf))

Corrected version

WILL argues that Wisconsin Admin. Code § MPSW 20.02(25) prohibits licensed counselors from using interventions intended to change a client's sexual orientation or gender identity and that, as written and enforced, the rule can bar faith‑based, change‑directed talk therapy (including efforts to help a client align gender identity with biological sex). The rule itself, however, expressly exempts counseling that assists a client seeking or undergoing gender transition and counseling that provides acceptance, support, or identity exploration, and it does not say counselors must direct clients to transition.

Automated evidence confidence: 0%

References and proof

Every link was reachable when published. Each proof point states how that source bears on the claim.

Official data Supports

Wis. Admin. Code § MPSW 20.02 - Unprofessional conduct ↗

Legal Information Institute (reproduces Wisconsin Admin. Code)
Proof point

Employ[] or promot[e] any intervention or method that has the purpose of attempting to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. This does not include counseling that assists a client who is seeking to undergo a gender transition ... or counseling that provides a client with acceptance, support, understanding, or that facilitates a client's ... identity exploration or development.

Court record Supports

Verified Complaint (Koschnick v. Evers) ↗

Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (court filing)
Proof point

The Rule ... declares it 'unprofessional conduct' for any licensee to 'Employ[] or promot[e] any intervention or method that has the purpose of attempting to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.' Plaintiffs allege the Rule prevents them from providing verbal advice ... to align a patient's gender identity with their biological sex.

Court record Supports

Chiles v. Salazar, No. 24-539 (U.S. Supreme Court opinion, March 31, 2026) ↗

Supreme Court of the United States
Proof point

The Court held that Colorado's conversion‑therapy ban, as applied to talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint and must be reviewed under strict scrutiny.

Independent reporting Supports

State’s Rule Cracking Down On Christian Gender Counseling Runs Afoul Of Supreme Court Ruling, Group Says ↗

The Daily Caller
Proof point

WILL Deputy Counsel Rebecca Furdek: 'The Wisconsin administrative rule bans counselors from offering certain perspectives in private, voluntary talk therapy sessions ...' (article attributes this contention to WILL).

Court record Supports

EVERS v. MARKLEIN, 2025 WI 36 (Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion referencing MPSW 20.02(25)) ↗

Wisconsin Supreme Court
Proof point

Discusses WIS. ADMIN. CODE MPSW § 20.02(25) as the Board rule banning conversion therapy by licensees and describes the rule's promulgation and subsequent challenges.

COMMUNITY EVIDENCE

Discussion

Disagreement is welcome. Spam and abuse are not.

No published comments yet. Add evidence or challenge the reasoning.

Members can comment for free

Create a free membership or sign in.