The question
Whether Colorado's law banning conversion therapy, as applied to a licensed counselor's talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint and must satisfy rigorous First Amendment scrutiny.
Chiles v. Salazar
What the Court decided
The Court held that Colorado's conversion-therapy ban, as applied to Kaley Chiles's talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint, and that the lower courts erred by failing to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny. The First Amendment presumptively bars content-based and viewpoint-based speech regulation, subjecting such laws to strict scrutiny unless they fall within a few narrow historic categories. Talk therapy does not fall within those categories.
How the justices split
8-1The Court's opinion
Gorsuch, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett
Held that the Colorado ban, as applied to Chiles's talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint and that the courts below erred by not applying sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny. Content-based and viewpoint-based speech regulations are presumptively unconstitutional and trigger strict scrutiny, which requires the government to prove the restriction is narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests. Only a few narrow historic categories of expression, such as fraud, defamation, and fighting words, escape that scrutiny, and talk therapy is not among them.
Concurring in the judgment
Kagan, joined by Sotomayor
Filed a concurring opinion, joined by Sotomayor, agreeing with the Court's judgment. The syllabus does not state the concurrence's separate reasoning.
Dissenting
Jackson, writing alone
Filed a dissenting opinion, disagreeing with the Court's disposition. The syllabus does not state the dissent's separate reasoning.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held that Colorado's conversion-therapy ban, as applied to Chiles's talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court held that the lower courts erred by failing to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court reasoned that content-based and viewpoint-based speech regulations are presumptively unconstitutional and trigger strict scrutiny.
Source: syllabus, Held
Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Jackson filed a dissenting opinion and Kagan filed a concurrence joined by Sotomayor.
Source: syllabus, lineup