8-1. That’s the Supreme Court curb-stomping Colorado’s law against conversion therapy for minors in Chiles v. Salazar.
conversion therapy bans are dead — at least in this state. Therapists can now chat up kids about changing their sexual orientation or gender identity. No more government muzzle.
But here’s the kicker. This ruling? It’s a powder keg for every professional speech rule out there.
Look, the Court loves playing favorites with the First Amendment when pros open their mouths.
Remember Planned Parenthood v. Casey?
- Pennsylvania forces docs to spiel abortion facts to women — risks, fetal age, adoption options. The Court shrugs. “Fine,” they say. “State can make doctors inform, even if it’s not health-related.”
“[W]e…see no reason why the State may not require doctors to inform a woman seeking an abortion of the availability of materials,” including those related to consequences of the pregnancy such as fetal development, “even when those consequences have no direct relation to her health.”
Doctors as state megaphones? Cool.
Fast-forward to 2018. NIFLA v. Becerra. California wants crisis pregnancy centers to advertise free abortions. Nope. Court nukes it. Compelled speech! And get this — no such thing as ‘professional speech’ carve-out.
Justice Thomas: crystal clear. They barely nod at Casey.
Inconsistent? You bet. Both anti-abortion wins, sure. But logic? MIA.
Rust vs. Velazquez: Subsidy Shenanigans
Rust v. Sullivan, 1991. Feds fund family planning — but no abortion talk. No referrals. Docs can’t even whisper it. Court upholds. “Our money, our rules.”
Then 2001. Legal Services Corp v. Velazquez. Feds fund lawyers — but no welfare law challenges. Court flips. “Distorts the system! Attorneys must advise freely.”
Same subsidy setup. Wildly different calls. Rehnquist vs. Kennedy. Pick your poison.
I’ve stared at these for years. Can’t square ‘em.
And don’t get me started on last year’s Skrmetti. Tennessee bans gender-affirming care for trans youth. Court defers to legislature. Medical deference! Noble.
Chiles? Zero nods to Colorado’s call that conversion therapy flops — hurts kids, even. No deference. Just free speech uber alles.
Pattern? Only when it suits.
Why Can’t These Justices Pick a Lane?
Short answer: politics. Long answer: the Court’s a mess on professional speech.
They’ve danced around it — advertising dentists (Central Hudson), lawyer ads (Bates), pharmacist notices. But core advice? Chaos.
Casey compels. NIFLA forbids. Rust restricts with cash. Velazquez frees.
Chiles piles on. Colorado’s ban? Just “talk therapy.” Protected expression, says the 8-1 majority. Sotomayor lone dissenter, probably fuming over pseudoscience getting a pass.
Here’s my unique hot take — one you won’t find in Chemerinsky’s polite recap. This reeks of the 1970s therapist free-speech wars. Back then, courts shielded shrinks from liability for wild advice (like Tarasoff warnings). Now? Echoes in AI land. Imagine regulating chatbot therapists — Grok counseling gender dysphoria, or ChatGPT nudging orientations. Chiles says hands off. Your OpenAI shrink could peddle conversion scripts tomorrow. Regulators? Back to square one.
Bold prediction: Next term, some red state sues over compelled trans-affirmation in schools. Cites Chiles. Wins big.
So, Does This Greenlight Quackery?
Not nationwide — yet. Chiles is Colorado-specific. But 8-1? Lower courts quake.
Over a dozen states ban conversion therapy for minors. All vulnerable now.
Therapists cheer. LGBTQ+ groups rage — rightly, it’s junk science. But First Amendment doesn’t care about truth. (Ask Big Tobacco’s ad days.)
Government’s regulated pro speech forever — accountants, therapists, lawyers. Mandated disclosures. Ethical oaths. Poof? Maybe.
Chemerinsky nails it: countless regs at risk.
“Although it is an 8-1 decision, if followed, it could put in danger the countless ways in which the government regulates this form of speech.”
Dry humor alert: Followed? By this Court? Ha.
One sentence: Hypocrisy reigns.
Deeper dive — states lose tools against harm. Kids suffer. But speech wins. Tradeoff?
Weigh it. Colorado legislature studied the data — therapy doesn’t work, causes depression. Ignored.
Skrmetti deferred there. Here? Crickets.
And the unlicensed notice in NIFLA? Struck. Truth-telling? Nah.
Professionals now mini-First Amendment fortresses. Good for therapists dodging ethics boards. Bad for public guardrails.
What About AI Therapists?
Tie-in time. Legal AI Beat readers, perk up.
Your Claude or Gemini giving therapy? Regs incoming — HIPAA, bias rules. Chiles whispers: maybe not.
If human talk is sacred, why not silicon? Courts could extend. Boom — unregulated AI shrinks everywhere.
PR spin from conservatives: “Parental rights!” Please. It’s speech absolutism with a side of culture war.
Liberals cry foul. But Casey ghosts haunt ‘em.
🧬 Related Insights
- Read more: Cursor’s Desperate Pivot to AI Agents: Can It Survive the Big Labs’ Subsidy War?
- Read more: Mixing US Patent Prosecutors with EPO Veterans: The Secret to Global IP Dominance
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Chiles v. Salazar?
Supreme Court case tossing Colorado’s ban on licensed therapists trying to change minors’ sexual orientation or gender identity via talk therapy. 8-1 win for free speech.
Does Chiles ban conversion therapy nationwide?
No, just Colorado’s law. But sets precedent — other state bans shaky now.
How does professional speech affect lawyers and doctors?
Court’s all over the map. Can compel, restrict, or protect — depending on the day. Chaos for regs.
Wrapping the Mess
Court’s speech doctrine? A carnival funhouse. Chiles adds a crooked mirror.
Pros win big. Regulators lose. Kids? Collateral.
Stay skeptical, folks.
