The Supreme Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar represents another significant victory for free speech and religious liberty. In an 8-1 ruling, the Court struck down Colorado’s attempt to restrict the speech of licensed counselor Kaley Chiles, holding that the First Amendment protects counseling conversations and prohibits the government from favoring one viewpoint over another. The Foundation for Moral Law filed an amicus brief in support of Chiles, contending that Colorado’s law violated the First Amendment by suppressing protected speech and interfering with the ability of counselors to practice in accordance with their faith.
The case arose after Colorado barred counselors from providing guidance to clients seeking to reduce unwanted same-sex attractions or resolve gender-related distress, while permitting counseling that affirmed a client’s transgender identity and same-sex attractions. Chiles, a Christian counselor, sought to provide counseling consistent with her clients’ goals and her faith. Colorado’s law, however, allowed counselors to advocate one perspective on gender identity and sexuality while forbidding counseling that reflected a contrary view.
In our amicus brief, the Foundation argued that the First Amendment does not permit the government to regulate speech based on agreement or disagreement with its message. Counseling is fundamentally communicative, consisting of conversations, guidance, and advice between counselors and clients. By permitting one perspective on gender identity and sexuality while prohibiting another, Colorado engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and infringed upon the free speech rights of counselors such as Chiles.
The Foundation also emphasized the broader implications for religious liberty. Chiles’ counseling practices were informed by her Christian faith, and the State’s restrictions interfered with her ability to practice her profession in a manner consistent with those convictions. Such government intrusion raises serious constitutional concerns whenever the State seeks to compel adherence to a preferred ideological viewpoint.
The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms that the First Amendment protects speech regardless of whether the government approves of the ideas being expressed. Public officials may not silence disfavored viewpoints while permitting favored ones, particularly in professional settings where open dialogue is essential.
The Foundation is grateful that the Supreme Court recognized the constitutional principles at stake and protected the rights of counselors to speak freely without government-imposed viewpoint restrictions. This decision marks an important victory for free speech, religious liberty, and the enduring principle that government may not dictate what Americans are permitted to say or believe.
Recent Posts…
For the better part of a century, religious liberty jurisprudence has been entangled in all manner of judge-made doctrine which, rather than serving the intended effect of simplifying the analysis of Establishment and Free Exercise claims, has led to more confusion, more contention, and ultimately more injury to religious liberty. Though this Court…
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider on November 7 whether to take up the case of former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, whose refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision made her a national figure in the debate over religious liberty and gay marriage. Davis, who was briefly jailed for…
The Foundation for Moral Law has filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Ermold v. Davis, a case arising from the prosecution of Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses that bore her name after the Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Represented by attorneys…