- Feb 5, 2002
- 184,148
- 67,241
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Oral argument in the ‘Chiles v. Salazar’ case indicates that a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court’s justices believe the ban is a violation of the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee.
After Tuesday morning’s oral argument in Chiles v. Salazar, it is clear that a majority — if not all nine justices — agree that an exacting review known as “strict scrutiny” should apply to Colorado’s ban on so-called “conversion therapy,” given its profound impact on the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee.
The case involves whether a state may forbid a licensed counselor from engaging in certain kinds of voluntary “talk therapy” with minors struggling with confusion related to sexual orientation and gender identity.
The case challenges Colorado’s 2019 Minor Conversion Therapy Law, which broadly forbids counseling that seeks to change or reduce same-sex attraction or gender incongruence. Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor and devout Christian, brought a pre-enforcement challenge, arguing that the law violates her First Amendment rights. Represented by James Campbell of Alliance Defending Freedom, Chiles contends that the state cannot dictate what may be said in private, voluntary counseling conversations.
Early on, Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested there might be no imminent threat since Colorado had “disavowed” enforcement, but Campbell countered that Chiles remains under active investigation, making the disavowal hollow. Interestingly, by the end of the state’s argument, its “late-breaking” challenge to legal standing — whether Chiles could even bring a case to court — was abandoned.
Continued below.
www.ncregister.com
After Tuesday morning’s oral argument in Chiles v. Salazar, it is clear that a majority — if not all nine justices — agree that an exacting review known as “strict scrutiny” should apply to Colorado’s ban on so-called “conversion therapy,” given its profound impact on the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee.
The case involves whether a state may forbid a licensed counselor from engaging in certain kinds of voluntary “talk therapy” with minors struggling with confusion related to sexual orientation and gender identity.
The case challenges Colorado’s 2019 Minor Conversion Therapy Law, which broadly forbids counseling that seeks to change or reduce same-sex attraction or gender incongruence. Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor and devout Christian, brought a pre-enforcement challenge, arguing that the law violates her First Amendment rights. Represented by James Campbell of Alliance Defending Freedom, Chiles contends that the state cannot dictate what may be said in private, voluntary counseling conversations.
Early on, Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested there might be no imminent threat since Colorado had “disavowed” enforcement, but Campbell countered that Chiles remains under active investigation, making the disavowal hollow. Interestingly, by the end of the state’s argument, its “late-breaking” challenge to legal standing — whether Chiles could even bring a case to court — was abandoned.
Continued below.
SCOTUS Sizes Up Colorado’s Ban on ‘Conversion Therapy’
COMMENTARY: Oral argument in the ‘Chiles v. Salazar’ case indicates that a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court’s justices believe the ban is a violation of the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee.
