The ongoing debate over conversion therapy continues to intersect with discussions on professional speech regulation, with the Supreme Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar, bringing fresh attention to this contentious subject. The judgment effectively declared Colorado’s prohibition on talk therapy aimed at altering a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity unconstitutional. This has revived discussions regarding the government’s authority to regulate professional speech and adds another layer to the court’s historically inconsistent treatment of such cases.
Looking back, the Supreme Court’s stance on professional speech regulations has wavered. Consider the cases of 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey and 2018’s National Institute for Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra. The former upheld a Pennsylvania statute that compelled doctors to deliver specific information concerning abortion, whereas in Becerra‘s instance, a California law mandating reproductive healthcare facilities to provide certain notices was struck down.
Equally as disparate are decisions in 1991’s Rust v. Sullivan and 2001’s Legal Services Corporation v. Velazquez. While Rust validated restrictions on federally funded clinics concerning abortion advice, Velazquez deemed it unconstitutional to limit federally funded attorneys from challenging welfare laws.
The decision in Chiles v. Salazar poses significant implications for the future of professional speech regulation. Concerns arise over whether states can continue to regulate speech within professional contexts. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, suggested malpractice litigation as a recourse for harmful professional speech. However, historical precedents like the 1964’s New York Times v. Sullivan complicate this avenue, indicating any such civil liability may conflict with First Amendment protections.
The ruling attracted criticism, notably in Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent, who underscored the potential threat to states’ regulatory abilities regarding medical treatments. Meanwhile, Justice Elena Kagan, concurring with the majority, signaled a willingness to reconsider current First Amendment interpretations, potentially easing how such laws are evaluated in the future.
The Chiles v. Salazar decision is emblematic of not just legal inconsistency but also highlights the court’s broader ideological leanings. This case may further hinder legislative efforts in numerous states aiming to protect LGBTQ+ youth from unproven and potentially harmful therapies, reinforcing existing divides in the landscape of professional speech regulation.