Estimated Time to Read: 10 minutes
What does a Colorado case about counseling have to do with Texas law? Quite a bit.
In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court struck down a key portion of Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” for minors, not because of the policy itself, but because of how the law regulated speech. The ruling in Chiles v. Salazar draws a sharp constitutional line that lawmakers across the country, including in Texas, can no longer ignore.
That line is simple in theory but significant in practice. States can regulate what professionals do. They have far less authority to regulate what professionals say, especially when the law favors one viewpoint over another.
For Texas, that distinction matters. Laws like Senate Bill 14 (SB 14), authored by State Sen. Donna Campbell (R-Bulverde) and passed in the 88th Legislative Session (2023), which regulate medical procedures, likely remain on solid ground. But newer laws, like Senate Bill 12 (SB 12), authored by former State Sen. Brandon Creighton (R-Conroe) and passed in the 89th Legislative Session (2025), which address guidance, instruction, and student interaction in public schools, sit much closer to the constitutional fault line the Court just clarified.
Understanding this ruling is not just about Colorado. It is about the future of how Texas lawmakers structure policy, how courts will evaluate those laws, and where the limits of government authority now stand.
What the Supreme Court Decided in Chiles v. Salazar
Colorado’s law prohibited licensed counselors from engaging in therapy with minors that seeks to change sexual orientation or gender identity. At the same time, it allowed counseling that affirms a minor’s identity or supports gender transition.
The lower courts upheld the law by treating it as a regulation of professional conduct. The United States Supreme Court disagreed. It held that, as applied to talk therapy, the law regulates speech based on viewpoint.
The Court emphasized that the counselor in this case was engaged in pure speech. She was not performing medical procedures or prescribing medication. She was having conversations. Because the law dictated what she could and could not say in those conversations, it was not incidental to conduct. It was a direct restriction on speech.
Even more significantly, the Court found that the law allowed one perspective while prohibiting the opposite. That is the essence of viewpoint discrimination, which the Court has repeatedly described as one of the most egregious violations of the First Amendment.
Why Viewpoint Discrimination Is Constitutionally Significant
The First Amendment does not simply protect speech in general. It places special limits on the government’s ability to favor one viewpoint over another.
In this case, Colorado allowed counselors to affirm a minor’s identity but prohibited them from helping a minor change or question that identity in a particular direction. The Court viewed that as the state choosing sides in a contested debate and enforcing that choice through law.
The majority made clear that even well-intentioned policies can run afoul of the Constitution if they suppress disfavored viewpoints. The government cannot prescribe acceptable opinions within private conversations, even in regulated professions.
The Critical Distinction Between Speech and Conduct
One of the most important takeaways from this decision is the distinction between regulating speech and regulating conduct.
States have long had the authority to regulate the practice of medicine. Laws governing surgeries, prescriptions, and clinical treatments are generally viewed as regulations of conduct. Even if those laws have some impact on speech, that impact is typically considered incidental.
However, when a law directly targets what a person says, especially in a private advisory setting, it becomes a speech regulation. If that regulation is based on viewpoint, it is subject to strict constitutional scrutiny. This distinction is now central. Laws that regulate conduct are more likely to be upheld. Laws that regulate speech, particularly in a viewpoint-selective way, are far more vulnerable.
Texas SB 14 Explained
Texas Senate Bill 14, enacted in 2023, addresses gender transitioning procedures and treatments for minors. The law prohibits physicians and health care providers from performing surgeries, prescribing puberty blockers, administering cross sex hormones, or otherwise providing medical treatments intended to transition a minor’s biological sex or affirm a gender identity inconsistent with biological sex.
The law also prohibits the use of public funds for such treatments and imposes professional consequences, including license revocation, for violations.
Notably, SB 14 does not regulate speech. It does not restrict what a physician or counselor may say to a minor. A provider remains free to discuss gender identity, express support for transition, or oppose it. The law is focused on medical interventions.
Why Texas SB 14 Is Likely Unaffected by the Supreme Court Ruling
Under the framework established in Chiles v. Salazar, SB 14 is on much firmer constitutional footing than Colorado’s law.
First, SB 14 regulates conduct. It addresses surgeries, prescriptions, and medical treatments. These are classic areas of state authority. Second, the law does not discriminate based on viewpoint in speech. It does not permit one type of counseling while prohibiting another. It leaves conversations untouched. Because of these factors, SB 14 is likely to be evaluated as a regulation of medical practice rather than a restriction on speech. Under that analysis, the First Amendment concerns raised in the Colorado case are not directly implicated.
While SB 14 may face challenges on other constitutional grounds, the Supreme Court’s conversion therapy ruling does not provide a straightforward basis for overturning it.
Texas SB 12 and Its Regulation of Speech in Schools
Texas Senate Bill 12, passed in 2025, presents a very different legal scenario from SB 14 and sits much closer to the constitutional line drawn in Chiles v. Salazar.
Unlike SB 14, SB 12 directly regulates speech within public schools. The law requires school districts to prohibit employees from assisting a student with social transitioning, including providing information or guidance related to that process. It defines social transitioning to include adopting a different name, pronouns, or other expressions inconsistent with biological sex.
The law also prohibits instruction, guidance, activities, or programming regarding sexual orientation or gender identity in public schools.
These provisions do not regulate medical procedures or physical conduct. They regulate communication itself, specifically what school employees may say or not say to students.
Texas Policy Research (TPR) supported SB 12 based on its emphasis on parental rights, transparency, and restoring appropriate boundaries between schools and families. The law reinforces the principle that parents, not school systems, should be the primary decision makers in matters related to a child’s upbringing, education, and well-being.
At the same time, the structure of SB 12 raises distinct constitutional questions under the framework established by the Supreme Court.
How SB 12 Interacts With the Supreme Court’s Ruling
When viewed through the lens of Chiles v. Salazar, SB 12 enters a more legally complex territory than SB 14.
First, the law regulates speech as speech. It explicitly prohibits providing information, guidance, or instruction on certain topics. That places it within the category of laws the Supreme Court scrutinized in the Colorado case. Second, the law operates in a directional manner. It prohibits assisting or supporting social transitioning, but it does not impose an equivalent restriction on discouraging transition or reinforcing biological sex. That asymmetry creates an argument that the law treats viewpoints differently.
If a court accepts that framing, challengers would likely argue that SB 12 functions similarly to the Colorado law, in that it allows one perspective while restricting another. That is the type of viewpoint discrimination the Supreme Court identified as constitutionally suspect.
However, the analysis does not end there.
The Key Legal Differences Between Schools and Counseling
SB 12 exists in a different legal context than the counseling relationship at issue in Chiles v. Salazar. Public schools have long been treated differently under First Amendment jurisprudence.
Courts have traditionally recognized that states have broad authority over curriculum and instruction. Teachers and school employees are often viewed as speaking on behalf of the state, not as independent speakers in a private professional relationship. This distinction gives the state more latitude to control what is taught and how information is presented in the classroom.
Additionally, SB 12 is grounded in a parental rights framework that runs throughout the law. It reinforces parental access to information, consent for services, and the ability to direct a child’s education and well-being.
From that perspective, the state is not merely regulating speech for its own sake. It is asserting a policy judgment about the proper role of schools and the rights of parents.
These factors could lead a court to distinguish SB 12 from the Colorado law, even though both involve restrictions on speech.
What a Legal Challenge to SB 12 Might Look Like
A legal challenge to SB 12 would likely center on the First Amendment.
A plaintiff would argue that the law restricts speech based on viewpoint by prohibiting one side of a conversation while leaving the other intact. They would rely heavily on the reasoning in Chiles v. Salazar to argue that the government cannot dictate what may be said in advisory interactions with students.
Texas would respond by emphasizing the unique role of public education. The state would argue that SB 12 regulates government speech, not private speech, and that it is acting within its authority to set curriculum, define employee conduct, and protect parental rights.
The outcome of such a challenge is uncertain. Unlike SB 14, which clearly regulates conduct, SB 12 sits in a gray area where speech, education policy, and parental rights intersect.
What This Means for Texas Law and Policy
The Supreme Court’s conversion therapy ruling does not undermine TPR’s support for SB 12, but it does highlight the importance of how such policies are structured.
SB 14 reflects a conduct-based approach that aligns with longstanding state authority to regulate medical practice. SB 12 reflects a speech adjacent approach that implicates a different set of constitutional considerations.
For Texas lawmakers, the lesson is not necessarily to abandon policies like SB 12, but to recognize that laws regulating communication will face a higher level of scrutiny than those regulating conduct. The state’s interest in protecting parental rights and ensuring transparency in public education remains strong. The question is how those goals are pursued in a way that withstands constitutional challenge.
What This Means for Texas
The Supreme Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar is not just about Colorado. It is a warning shot to every state, including Texas, about the limits of government authority over speech.
For Texas, the distinction is now unavoidable.
SB 14 regulates what medical professionals do, and that places it firmly within the traditional authority of the state. SB 12, by contrast, regulates what educators may say, and that places it much closer to the constitutional boundary the Court has now drawn.
Texas Policy Research supported SB 12 because it restores parental authority and reins in the expanding role of public schools in deeply personal matters. That reasoning still stands, but the legal reality is just as clear. When government policy moves from regulating conduct to regulating speech, especially in a way that appears to favor one viewpoint over another, it invites constitutional challenge.
The takeaway for Texas lawmakers is straightforward. If the goal is to create a durable policy that withstands judicial scrutiny, structure matters. Laws that focus on actions will hold. Laws that attempt to control conversations will be tested.
The Supreme Court has now clarified the rules of the road. Texas can continue to pursue policies grounded in parental rights and limited government, but doing so successfully will require precision, discipline, and a clear understanding of where that constitutional line now sits.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
