ST. PAUL, Minn. — True North Legal filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, asking the court to stop the State from enforcing Minnesota's counseling-speech ban against Christian counselors while the case proceeds.

True North Legal filed the motion yesterday afternoon on behalf of the Christian Counselors Freedom Alliance (CCFA), an association of Christian licensed counselors across Minnesota. The case is Christian Counselors Freedom Alliance v. Ellison et al., case number 26-cv-3780.

At issue is Minn. Stat. § 214.078, enacted in 2023, which subjects licensed counselors to professional discipline, up to and including the loss of their licenses, for engaging in counseling-room speech that seeks to help children and teens deal with gender confusion by accepting their sex. The same statute expressly permits counselors to provide “assistance to an individual undergoing gender transition.”

“Under Minnesota’s law, a licensed counselor may tell a teenager struggling with gender confusion that his body is the problem. But the same counselor may not tell him that he is already whole. That is a betrayal of the children the State claims to protect, pushing kids down a dangerous path of sex-rejection,” said Doug Wardlow, Director of Litigation for True North Legal. “It is also unconstitutional. As the Supreme Court held just this year in Chiles v. Salazar, the government may not wield its licensing power to silence the views it disfavors in the counseling room. Minnesota’s law does exactly that, and we are asking the court to halt its enforcement now.”

“All children and teens struggling with accepting their sex should be able to talk openly with a licensed counselor—someone who will listen to their goals and struggles. Minnesota’s counseling law restricting speech for counselors makes this impossible, leaving a vacuum of care, and it’s Minnesota kids who suffer the most,” added True North Legal General Counsel Renee Carlson. “The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar makes clear that the compassionate conversations between counselors and kids is not illegal conduct and should not be treated as such under the law. Nor should counselors be forced to deny faith-informed counseling to struggling kids and teens seeking help that aligns with their faith. We are proud to stand with CCFA’s counselors and hopeful that the Court will grant our motion for preliminary injunction.”

The Supreme Court has already ruled on a nearly identical law

The motion argues that the case is controlled by Chiles v. Salazar, in which the Supreme Court held earlier this year that Colorado's counseling-ban law unconstitutionally censors speech based on viewpoint as applied to talk therapy and reversed and remanded the denial of a preliminary injunction.

The filing places the Minnesota and Colorado statutes side by side. Both prohibit counseling that seeks to change gender identity, and both reach “efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions.” At the same time, both statutes permit counseling that encourages gender transition and gender-identity exploration. Both statutes subject licensed counselors to professional discipline for violations.  

Three constitutional claims

The memorandum advances three independent constitutional claims:

• Free Speech. CCFA's members offer only talk therapy — conversation, with no aversive or coercive techniques — to clients who come voluntarily and set their own counseling goals. The Minnesota counseling-ban law runs afoul of the First Amendment because it allows counseling-room speech aimed at encouraging so-called gender transition while punishing speech aimed at helping the willing client accept their sex and gain comfort with their physical body.  The State cannot green-light speech that expresses one viewpoint and punish speech that expresses the opposite viewpoint.  

• Free Exercise. By expressly permitting talk therapy when it runs in the State's preferred direction while forbidding CCFA counselors from offering counsel that is compelled by their sincerely held Christian beliefs, the statute impermissibly burdens the free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment.  

• Vagueness. The statute defines none of the terms on which liability turns — not “gender identity,” not “gender expressions,” and not “identity exploration and development.” As a result, counselors do not know what speech may subject them to discipline, and they are compelled to steer far clear of the line.  That compelled censorship is an ongoing constitutional injury.  

Relief requested

The motion asks the court to bar the Minnesota Attorney General and the members and executive directors of the Board of Behavioral Health and Therapy and the Board of Marriage and Family Therapy from investigating, prosecuting, or disciplining CCFA members under § 214.078 for counseling-room speech during the pendency of the case.

The Court has not yet set a hearing date.

###

CONTACT for TRUE NORTH LEGAL:

https://truenorthlegal.org/contact/media-inquiry