2026年4月9日 美国东部时间早上6:00 / 福克斯新闻
科罗拉多斯普林斯的信仰咨询师凯莉·蔡尔斯就该州2019年青少年谈话疗法法案提起诉讼
作者：阿什利·奥利弗 福克斯新闻
最高法院就转换疗法作出裁决，将迎来出生权公民权案件庭审
《福克斯周日新闻》主持人香农·布里姆在“特别报道”栏目中报道了最高法院以8比1的投票结果就转换疗法案作出的裁决，以及即将开庭的出生权公民权辩论。
NEW 您现在可以收听福克斯新闻的文章了！
收听本文
4分钟
上周科罗拉多州在蔡尔斯诉萨拉萨尔案中败诉于最高法院，这是近年来该州在重大文化战争议中第三次被最高法院驳回，进一步印证了该州在言论、宗教和反歧视法相关案件中频频遭遇高调逆转的趋势。
最高法院的这一裁决是科罗拉多州三连败的最新一笔，此前科罗拉多州民权委员会在一起关键的宗教自由案件中败诉于一名蛋糕师，还有一名网站设计师也在类似官司中打赢了州民权部门。保守派法律专家表示，该州遭遇的法律挫折并非巧合。
“科罗拉多州似乎一门心思要推行自己新的思想正统，而最高法院不得不一次次出面纠正他们，提醒他们第一修正案保护言论自由和宗教自由，即便州政府可能不同意个人的观点，”法律监督组织JCN主席卡丽·塞维里诺告诉福克斯新闻数字频道。
最高法院上周裁定，科罗拉多州2019年由民主党州长贾里德·波利斯签署的转换疗法禁令违反了第一修正案，因为该法案仅限制旨在阻止未成年人接受跨性别或同性身份认同的谈话疗法。
最高法院以第一修正案为由否决科罗拉多州所谓的“转换疗法”禁令
凯莉·蔡尔斯，蔡尔斯诉萨拉萨尔案的原告。（联盟辩护基金 新闻稿）
在回应福克斯新闻数字频道关于此案是否存在明显共性的提问时，联盟辩护基金律师吉姆·坎贝尔表示，该州“已证明自己丝毫不尊重第一修正案”。
“我认为到目前为止这绝非巧合，”在口头辩论阶段代表蔡尔斯出庭的坎贝尔说，“科罗拉多州全然无视像凯莉·蔡尔斯这样的人的第一修正案权利。”
乔纳森·特利：这个蓝州最新对言论自由的攻击既可怕又阴险
在蔡尔斯诉萨拉萨尔案中，最高法院以8比1的投票结果认定该州法律基于观点进行歧视。大法官尼尔·戈萨奇撰写了多数意见，称这种压制言论的法律相当于对宪法的“‘令人震惊的’攻击”。
“第一修正案是一道盾牌，抵御任何在这个国家强制推行思想或言论正统的企图，”戈萨奇写道。
此案的核心是科罗拉多斯普林斯的持证信仰咨询师蔡尔斯，她声称自己会帮助青少年实现他们自己明确提出的目标，其中可能包括寻求有关性取向和性别认同咨询的未成年人。
科罗拉多州众议院推进转换疗法法案诉讼
2026年1月13日，星期二，在华盛顿，抗议者在最高法院外挥舞跨性别骄傲旗帜，抗议最高法院就禁止跨性别女孩和女性参加校队的州法律举行听证会。（朱莉娅·德马雷·尼基森/美联社）
科罗拉多州辩称，它有权监管蔡尔斯的疗法，因为这属于职业行为范畴，且该州希望保护未成年人免受蔡尔斯所谓的有害咨询的影响。
这一裁决是在2023年一项具有里程碑意义的裁决之后作出的，当时最高法院以6比3的投票结果在303创意有限责任公司诉埃利尼斯案中裁定，第一修正案禁止科罗拉多州利用州《反歧视法》强迫一名网站设计师为同性伴侣制作婚礼网站。最高法院在裁决中表示，州政府不能强迫个人创作其本人反对的信息内容。
当时人们认为这一裁决是言论自由的重大胜利，此前最高法院在2018年对杰作蛋糕店诉科罗拉多州民权委员会案作出了范围更窄的裁决。
在那起案件中，大法官们支持面包师杰克·菲利普斯，认定科罗拉多州民权委员会对他的宗教信仰表现出了违宪的敌意，而这种敌意并未针对其他面包师。
“至少在杰作蛋糕店案发生时，最高法院就已经发现科罗拉多州的州机构行为方式对特定信仰存在偏见，而从目前情况看，这些年来这种情况并未改变，”塞维里诺说，“不幸的是，每次最高法院纠正他们之后，他们反而变本加厉。”
卡根在脚注中抨击自由派盟友杰克逊，矛头直指言论自由
面包师杰克·菲利普斯，杰作蛋糕店店主，在科罗拉多州莱克伍德的店内打理生意，2018年8月15日。（亨扬·张/《丹佛邮报》 via 盖蒂图片社）
保守派组织美国原则协会主席特里·席林关注到了科罗拉多州的这一趋势，他在给福克斯新闻数字频道的一份声明中表示，该州的民主党人“会践踏任何阻碍富有的同性恋和跨性别游说团体的人的权利，无论是面包师、医生还是绝望的家庭”。
“本不必经过漫长的法律斗争或最高法院来遏制自由主义者对现实的战争，”席林说，“这就是为什么受够了的科罗拉多州家庭直接呼吁选民保护儿童免受极端民主党人的侵害，”席林补充道，他提到了其所在组织在该州推动保守派公民提案的努力。
点击此处获取福克斯新闻应用程序
除了第一修正案相关案件，科罗拉多州还是其他极具争议的法律斗争的试验场，这些案件最终都提交到了最高法院。
在特朗普诉安德森案中，大法官们一致推翻了州最高法院的裁决，该裁决以唐纳德·特朗普总统被指控煽动叛乱为由将其排除在2024年总统初选 ballot之外，最高法院认定该州无权将其除名。
阿什利·奥利弗是福克斯新闻数字频道和福克斯商业频道的记者，负责报道司法部和法律事务。可通过邮箱ashley.oliver@fox.com发送新闻线索。
Colorado’s latest Supreme Court loss adds to growing string of culture war defeats
April 9, 2026 6:00am EDT / Fox News
Kaley Chiles, a faith-based counselor in Colorado Springs, challenged the state’s 2019 law on talk therapy for minors
By Ashley Oliver Fox News
Supreme Court rules on conversion therapy, prepare to hear birthright citizenship case
‘Fox News Sunday’ anchor and Shannon Bream reports on the Supreme Court’s 8-1 ruling on conversion therapy and the upcoming birthright citizenship arguments on ‘Special Report.’
NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!
Listen to this article
4 min
Colorado’s loss in the Supreme Court’s Kaley Chiles case last week marked the third time in recent years the justices have rebuked the state in a major culture-war dispute, adding to a growing pattern of high-profile reversals in cases over speech, religion and anti-discrimination law.
The high court’s decision was the latest in a trio of lawsuits that backfired for Colorado, after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission lost in court to a cake baker in a key religious liberty case and after a website designer won a similar battle against the state’s civil rights division. Conservative legal experts said the legal setbacks for the state were not a coincidence.
“Colorado seems hell-bent on enforcing its own new orthodoxy of thought, and the Supreme Court has had to come back time and time again to correct them and to remind them that the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, even when the state may disagree with a person’s opinions,” Carrie Severino, president of the legal watchdog JCN, told Fox News Digital.
The Supreme Court last week found that Colorado’s conversion therapy ban, signed into law in 2019 by Democratic Gov. Jared Polis, violated the First Amendment because it only restricted talk therapy when the therapy aimed to prevent minors from embracing being transgender or gay.
SUPREME COURT BLOCKS COLORADO’S SO-CALLED ‘CONVERSION THERAPY’ BAN ON FIRST AMENDMENT GROUNDS
Kaley Chiles, plaintiff in Chiles v. Salazar.(Alliance Defending Freedom, press release)
In response to a question from Fox News Digital about the apparent theme, Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Jim Campbell said the state “has proven itself to be no respecter of the First Amendment.”
“I don’t think at this point that it’s coincidental,” said Campbell, who represented Chiles before the Supreme Court during oral arguments. “The State of Colorado has shown an utter disregard for the First Amendment rights of people like Kaley Chiles.”
JONATHAN TURLEY: THIS BLUE STATE’S LATEST ATTACK ON FREE SPEECH IS AWFUL AND SNEAKY, TOO
In Chiles v. Salazar, the high court found 8-1 that the state law discriminated based on viewpoint. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority opinion that such laws suppressing speech on that basis amounted to an “‘egregious’ assault” on the Constitution.
“The First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country,” Gorsuch wrote.
The case centered on Chiles, a licensed faith-based counselor in Colorado Springs, who argued that she helped youths reach their own stated goals, which she said could include minors seeking counseling on their sexuality and gender identity.
COLORADO HOUSE ADVANCES CONVERSION THERAPY LAWSUIT BILL
Protesters wave transgender pride flags outside the Supreme Court as it hears arguments over state laws barring transgender girls and women from playing on school athletic teams, Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2026, in Washington.(Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP)
Colorado argued it was allowed to regulate Chiles’ therapy because it amounted to professional conduct and the state wanted to protect minors from Chiles’ perceived harmful counseling.
The decision followed a landmark ruling in 2023, when the Supreme Court found 6-3 in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis that the First Amendment barred Colorado from using the state’s Anti-Discrimination Act to force a website designer to create wedding websites for same-sex couples. The high court said in the ruling that the state could not force a person to create content conveying a message that he or she disagreed with.
That ruling was viewed at the time as a broad free speech win that followed the Supreme Court’s narrower 2018 decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
In that case, the justices sided with baker Jack Phillips, finding that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had shown unconstitutional hostility toward his religious beliefs that the commission did not show toward other bakers.
“The Supreme Court found, at least at the time of Masterpiece Cakeshop, that Colorado’s state agency was acting in a way biased against a certain set of beliefs, and from what we can see that hasn’t changed in the intervening years,” Severino said. “Unfortunately, each time the Supreme Court has corrected them, they’ve only doubled down.”
KAGAN TURNS ON LIBERAL ALLY JACKSON WITH FOOTNOTE JAB OVER FREE SPEECH
Baker Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, manages his shop in Lakewood, Colo., Aug. 15, 2018.(Hyoung Chang/The Denver Post via Getty Images)
Terry Schilling, president of the conservative American Principles, observed the trend in Colorado, saying in a statement provided to Fox News Digital that Democrats there “will stomp on the rights of anyone who stands in the way of the well-heeled gay and transgender lobby whether it is bakers, doctors, or desperate families.”
“It should not take the lengthy legal battles or the Supreme Court to rein in the liberal war against reality,” Schilling said. “That is why fed-up Colorado families are appealing straight to voters to protect children from extremist Democrats,” Schilling added, citing his organization’s efforts to pass conservative ballot initiatives in the state.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Outside the First Amendment cases, Colorado has also been a testing ground for other highly polarizing legal fights that made it to the Supreme Court.
The justices in Trump v. Anderson unanimously reversed the state Supreme Court’s decision to remove President Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential primary ballot over allegations that he had incited an insurrection, finding the state lacked the authority to remove him.
Ashley Oliver is a reporter for Fox News Digital and FOX Business, covering the Justice Department and legal affairs. Email story tips to ashley.oliver@fox.com.
发表回复