Can state officials avoid the rigors of First Amendment analysis by characterizing speech they dislike as “conduct?”
That’s a core issue in Chiles v. Salazar.
The Institute for Free Speech filed an amicus brief in Chiles, urging the Supreme Court to reverse a Tenth Circuit decision that upheld Colorado’s restrictions on talk therapy.
Chiles concerns a Colorado law that prohibits licensed therapists from providing to minors talk therapy aimed at exploring or reducing unwanted same-sex attractions or gender identity conflicts, even though the patient voluntarily seeks it. Licensed therapist Kaley Chiles challenged the law, arguing that it violates her and her clients’ First Amendment rights.
The Institute warns that the lower court’s reasoning allows governments to sidestep strict scrutiny, the normal standard of judicial review for cases dealing with speech restrictions, by manipulating definitions and analyzing laws at abstract levels far removed from the actual burden on speech.
The brief also highlights the serious deficiencies in Colorado’s evidentiary justifications for its law, as well as warning that lower courts are making similar errors when ruling on challenges to campaign finance laws, noting how courts too often defer to legislative judgments that rest on suspect evidence rather than requiring rigorous proof of actual harms.
To read the Institute’s full Supreme Court amicus brief in Chiles v. Salazar, click here. To read the press release, click here.
