Arguments before the 8th Circuit focused on whether local ordinances violate the First Amendment by regulating speech between licensed counselors and clients.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A legal dispute over counseling restrictions and anti-discrimination ordinances in Missouri moved back before a federal appeals court this month as attorneys for Kansas City defended local laws challenged by Christian counselors who argue the policies violate free speech and religious liberty protections.
The case gained renewed attention after the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of Colorado counselor Kaley Chiles, with eight justices blocking enforcement of a state law that restricted certain forms of counseling conversations involving gender identity. The Court’s action in that case immediately reshaped ongoing litigation involving local counseling ordinances around the country.
According to a Just the News report, Kansas City and Jackson County are continuing to defend ordinances regulating counseling practices despite acknowledging similarities between their laws and the Colorado measure affected by the Supreme Court ruling.
The challenge was brought by licensed counselors Wyatt Bury and Pamela Eisenreich, who are represented by the conservative legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom. The counselors argue the ordinances unlawfully force them to provide counseling services and speech inconsistent with their Christian beliefs regarding marriage and gender identity.
Earlier litigation centered on arguments by the city and county that the ordinances regulate professional conduct rather than speech itself. Those arguments were complicated after the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Colorado case, which subjected such restrictions to strict scrutiny, the highest level of constitutional review.
Kansas City and Jackson County sought to delay oral arguments before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after the Supreme Court decision, stating they intended to repeal portions of the counseling bans. Appeals judges rejected efforts to cancel oral argument entirely.
During proceedings before Judges Steven Colloton, Bobby Shepherd, and Jonathan Kobes, Kansas City attorney Tara Kelly said repeal legislation had already been introduced while Jackson County planned similar action.
Kelly argued the case should be sent back to U.S. District Judge Roseann Ketchmark for reconsideration under the Supreme Court’s updated guidance.
Judge Ketchmark previously upheld the counseling bans while partially blocking enforcement of the public accommodation ordinance as it related specifically to pronoun usage.
At oral argument, Kelly maintained that the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance regulates discriminatory conduct rather than restricting protected speech. However, she also acknowledged that counselors could not refuse services to same-sex couples based on sexual orientation or gender identity if they offer similar counseling to heterosexual couples.
According to the hearing, Kelly argued that counselors remain free to express Christian beliefs during counseling sessions but cannot publicly state in advance that certain groups are unwelcome clients.
The exchange prompted repeated questioning from the appellate panel regarding whether the ordinance effectively compels speech or forces counselors into counseling relationships that conflict with their beliefs.
Kelly told the court the ordinance does not regulate the content of counseling sessions themselves and compared the law to standard public accommodation rules prohibiting businesses from denying services to protected groups.
She distinguished the case from Supreme Court decisions involving compelled artistic expression, including Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creative, which addressed custom wedding products tied to same-sex marriage ceremonies.
Attorneys representing Bury and Eisenreich argued the city’s position remained internally inconsistent. Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Bryan Neihart told the panel the ordinances still chill his clients’ speech because they face potential legal penalties if they publicly disclose their counseling positions regarding same-sex relationships and gender identity.
Neihart argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in the Colorado case resolved the broader legal distinction between speech and conduct in counseling contexts, undermining the reasoning previously used to uphold the Missouri restrictions.
He also cited the 8th Circuit’s earlier Telescope Media Group decision, which allowed a Christian couple challenging Minnesota’s anti-discrimination law to proceed with a First Amendment challenge over producing same-sex wedding videos.
Throughout the hearing, appellate judges questioned both sides about whether Kansas City’s current position differed from arguments previously made in court filings defending compelled compliance under public accommodation law.
Near the conclusion of arguments, one judge suggested the city appeared to be softening or reconsidering some of its earlier legal positions regarding compelled counseling and speech obligations under the ordinance.