A U.S. district court judge must reconsider the constitutionality of ordinances put in place by Kansas City and Jackson County restricting a counselor’s right to speak freely about gender identity and sexuality issues in light of the Supreme Court’s recent landmark Chiles v. Salazar ruling.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has revived a lawsuit challenging local censorship ordinances for talk therapists in Missouri by sending the case back to a lower court for reconsideration following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar.
In that opinion, handed down in March, the Supreme Court ruled that a Colorado law banning talk therapists from using so-called “conversion therapy” related to gender identity and sexuality is an “egregious assault” on the First Amendment.
In the Missouri case, licensed counselors Wyatt Bury and Pamela Eisenrich had filed a lawsuit, along with the Missouri Attorney General, challenging similar local counseling restrictions passed by Kansas City and Jackson County that required talk therapists to fully accept and support a patient’s preferred gender identity and same-sex attraction, even if the patient expressed a desire to explore their confusion and change. While U.S. District Court Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark did bar the two local governments from investigating or prosecuting the individual plaintiffs while the case was pending, she refused to grant a preliminary injunction barring the governments from generally enforcing their ordinances.
On July 2, two months after the case was appealed, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling and asked the judge to take another look in light of the Chiles decision. The counselors are represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which also represented Christian therapist Kaley Chiles in the Colorado case.
According to Alliance Defending Freedom, the challenged ordinances restrict counselors from engaging in voluntary conversations with clients regarding gender identity and sexuality if those discussions reflect viewpoints disfavored by local governments. The legal organization also argued that one Kansas City ordinance compelled counselors to express messages they oppose while limiting what they could say to clients and the public. Any therapist who violates the ordinances can be punished by a hefty fine and jail time.
Kansas City had already repealed one of the challenged ordinances shortly after oral arguments before the Eighth Circuit but left another ordinance in place. Jackson County’s counseling ordinance remains in effect.
“No government should single out views they don’t like for disfavored treatment,” said ADF Senior Counsel Bryan Neihart, who argued the case before the appeals court in May. “The Kansas City and Jackson County ordinances allow counselors to push kids down the dangerous path of gender transition, often leading to harmful drugs and surgeries, but they forbid counselors like Wyatt and Pamela from talking with kids to help them accept their bodies, even when that is the client’s express goal or the reason they seek the counselors’ advice. This is precisely what the U.S. Supreme Court so recently explained isn’t acceptable under the First Amendment.”
Neihart also argued that a remaining Kansas City ordinance unlawfully compels speech by requiring counselors to promote views that conflict with their religious beliefs.
“The Kansas City ordinance that forces Wyatt and Pamela to promote views on marriage, identity, and sexuality that contradict their religious beliefs is equally unacceptable, especially after the Supreme Court’s decision in another ADF case, 303 Creative v. Elenis,” Neihart stated. “The 8th Circuit’s decision gives the district court the opportunity to fully uphold counselors’ freedom of speech and the freedom of families and young people to pursue counselors of their choice, and we hope it will do so.”
In Chiles v. Salazar, the Supreme Court ruled that conversations between counselors and clients constitute protected speech under the First Amendment and that governments may not prohibit counseling based on viewpoint. In 303 Creative v. Elenis, the High Court held that the government cannot compel individuals to express messages with which they disagree.
The case will now return to the U.S. District Court for further proceedings consistent with the appeals court’s ruling. It is one of numerous lawsuits that will wind its way through the court system and likely prevail as a result of the Chiles decision.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Missouri AG Sues Kansas City Over Counselor Speech Restrictions
{Published on February 13, 2025} Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) have filed suit against the City of Kansas City and Jackson County, Missouri, for their ordinances that ban mental health professionals from encouraging clients to accept their biological sex or assisting them with unwanted same-sex attraction.
The ordinances ban so-called “conversion therapy,” which is any form of counseling that seeks to “change” a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity or to reduce or change behaviors related to gender and sexual orientation.
Kansas City passed its ordinance in 2019. The ordinance falsely claims that conversion therapy is proven to be harmful but that “affirming” approaches such as promoting gender transitions are proven to be beneficial. The ordinance prohibits conversion therapy but specifically exempts counseling that affirms a person’s gender dysphoria and counseling as part of a gender transition.
Jackson County’s ordinance is similar and was passed in 2023.
Each violation of the ordinances carries a fine of $1,000.
ADF represents two licensed counselors, Wyatt Bury and Pamela Eisenreich, who say that the ordinances interfere with their ability to operate according to their religious beliefs as well as their views on effective clinical approaches.
Bury and Eisenreich are both Christians. They seek to provide counseling services according to their faith. For example, they won’t counsel someone to identify as the opposite gender because they believe that sex is immutable, given by God. Many of their clients specifically seek them out because of their religious beliefs as the clients desire a counselor who understands their Christian faith and can help them live in accordance with those beliefs.
The suit states that clients are asked if they would like to integrate their faith into the counseling. If clients say no, the counselors do not talk about religion nor do they ever force their beliefs on clients.
The suit also notes that the counselors do not provide counseling unless the minor consents, meaning that parents are not able to force a child into counseling. If the minor doesn’t want counseling, the counselors do not provide it. The counselors also seek to help the child meet his or her goals, not help the child meet the parents’ goals.
Bury would like to expand his practice to aid children with gender and sexuality concerns, but he has not because the ordinance would stop him from providing counseling according to his religious beliefs and professional judgment.
Eisenreich has counseled many LGBT minors and frequently gets requests from parents with LGBT children, but she rarely agrees to counsel these children due to fear of fines and losing her practice because of the ordinances.
The suit argues that the ordinances violate the counselors’ right to free exercise of religion and freedom of speech by banning them from counseling minors to accept their biological sex or assist them with unwanted same-sex attraction, even if minors ask for this.
The suit also argues that the ordinances compel speech by requiring counselors to affirm gender confusion and gender transitions as the correct pathway.
Missouri states that it has an interest in protecting the First Amendment rights of psychological professionals and in protecting its sovereignty.
Missouri has a law, known as the SAFE Act, banning gender transitions in minors and argues that the ordinances not only stop professionals from providing care to help minors with gender confusion but compels them to act contrary to Missouri’s law.
The suit claims that the governments show clear bias in favor of gender ideology by exempting gender-affirming counseling from the ordinance and through statements made in opposition to Missouri’s law banning child gender transitions.
When Missouri passed the SAFE Act it did so because evidence shows that gender transitions are harmful to minors, yet Kansas City reacted to the SAFE Act by declaring itself a “Safe Haven for Gender-Affirming Healthcare through adoption of a Gender-Affirming Healthcare Policy.”
Councilwoman Andrea Bough, who co-sponsored the resolution, stated that it “protect[s] the sanctity of a family, an individual, and their ability to make decisions with their physician .… it leaves that decision with that child and their parents …. What this does is to say to our community that … we support the decisions that you are going to be making in private with your physicians.”
She continued, “it is not an issue politicians should be in, it should be an issue that is saved for families, their physicians, and a decision that politicians should not make.”
Bailey said in a series of posts on X, “We are suing Kansas City for forcing counselors to push a radical transgender ideology onto children. Our children have a right to therapy that allows for honest, unrestricted conversations, free from transgender indoctrination. We’re fighting back.”
He added, “No counselor should be forced to violate their conscience, and no child should be denied access to therapy that aligns with their values. Kansas City’s ordinance represents a dangerous overreach, forcing children and counselors to conform to a radical transgender agenda. That’s a major violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Missouri won’t allow the government to silence counselors or dictate how they serve their patients.”
Kansas City supports medical professionals, parents, and children making decisions for themselves — unless that decision is anything that differs from Kansas City’s preferred view. What the governments are trying to do is create a government-mandated orthodoxy that mental health professionals and physicians must parrot and practice.
That even includes pastors and religious-based counseling services. Jackson County rejected an exemption based on free speech and free exercise rights and County Legislator Manuel Abarca IV made it clear that the County was targeting religious groups.
Abarca claimed that conversion therapy was primarily conducted by religious or religious-adjacent groups. He also stated that most opposition to the ordinance came from segments of the Baptist church. He reasoned that the County rejected the exemption because “we felt that to have the most impact we [should] leave that out because we’re talking about a clinic practice…the reality that the church can do whatever they want however they want is just not true.”
This is far from a rare occurrence. The Biden administration attempted to eliminate “conversion therapy” worldwide, and more than 20 states control what mental health professionals can say to their clients.
Meanwhile, there is a split at the nation’s appellate level. The 9th Circuit upheld a Washington state law that bans such counseling, whereas the 11th Circuit ruled that Tampa Bay’s ban on conversion therapy violated the Constitution.
In January 2024, the Supreme Court declined to hear the challenge to Washington’s law. In November ,the Court was again asked to take up a case challenging Colorado’s law.
The Supreme Court must rule on this issue.
It is important to cut through the misleading term “conversion therapy.” Under these laws, a licensed counselor or psychiatrist cannot counsel a person towards accepting their biological sex, even though studies show 98 percent of children will accept their biological sex if not pushed to transition.
These laws also stop a mental health professional from helping a person to deal with unwanted same-sex attraction even if the client is seeking to deal with these unwanted thoughts or feelings.
So let’s make this clear: These laws are mandating that mental health professionals aid a person in converting to another gender and seek to force a person to adopt an unwanted sexual orientation.
They aren’t conversion therapy bans; they are government-commanded conversion therapy.
Such laws violate the First Amendment rights of mental health professionals, parents, and clients.
Numerous studies have shown that gender transitions harm children instead of help them. This isn’t the government seeking to help protect minors from kooky religious fanatics who keep them from pursuing medical care. These are kooky fanatics using the power of the state to uphold a fully discredited experiment that causes serious harm to children.
Freedom is not preserved in courtrooms alone. It lives when Americans can seek counsel, speak the truth, and follow conscience without government permission. Your gift helps the Standing for Freedom Center defend biblical conviction, expose government overreach, and equip the next generation to stand courageously for liberty.
