The recent Supreme Court decision in Chiles v. Salazar has stirred debate over the regulation of professional speech, particularly as it pertains to “conversion therapy.” Declaring unconstitutional a Colorado law that prohibited conversion therapy aimed at altering minors’ sexual orientation or gender identity, the decision continues a pattern of the Court’s inconsistent rulings on speech regulation by professionals.
This inconsistency is evident when comparing past decisions. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court upheld a mandate requiring doctors to convey specific information before an abortion, viewing it as permissible compelled speech. Contrastingly, in NIFLA v. Becerra, it struck down a California law mandating clinics to inform eligible women about state-funded contraceptives and abortions, citing impermissible compelled speech.
The case of Rust v. Sullivan allowed restrictions on federally funded family-planning services related to abortion counseling, emphasizing governmental discretion on subsidized activities. Conversely, in Legal Services Corporation v. Velazquez, the Court invalidated limitations on federally funded attorneys from challenging welfare laws, highlighting the distortion of the legal system.
Recent judgments, such as United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld a Tennessee law restricting gender-affirming care for transgender youth, exhibit a contrasting deference to state legislative decisions absent in Chiles v. Salazar. This absence of deference raises questions about the judiciary’s consistency in evaluating professional care regulations.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent in Chiles v. Salazar highlights concerns over the potential impairment of states’ regulatory powers on medical care, advocating for preemptive intervention over reliance on malpractice litigation. The decision suggests an evolving judicial perspective on professional speech, likely influenced by the Court’s value judgements, raising broader implications for future regulation.
To read the full discussion on these intricacies, explore the article in SCOTUSblog here.