SAU’s Wagner Center Plays Significant Role in Supreme Court Victory Affirming First Amendment Freedoms

In a landmark 8–1 decision, the United States Supreme Court delivered a decisive victory for free speech in Chiles v. Salazar (No. 24-539), holding that Colorado’s restriction on counseling conversations constituted unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Writing for the majority, Justice Gorsuch concluded that the state’s law improperly regulated speech based on its content and viewpoint, failing to meet the rigorous demands of the First Amendment.  

At issue was whether Colorado could prohibit licensed counselors from engaging in certain conversations with clients—particularly those involving sexual orientation or gender identity—while permitting other viewpoints. The Court rejected the state’s attempt to characterize the law as merely regulating professional conduct, instead recognizing it as a direct burden on protected speech.

Amicus briefs played a critical role in framing the constitutional stakes, including one authored by the Wagner Center’s Distinguished Chair on behalf of legislators from 30 states. Wagner emphasized the foundational nature of First Amendment protections, particularly where religious conviction informs speech. As the brief explained, the Constitution’s speech and religious liberty guarantees “work in tandem—doubly protecting a person’s religious expression so that only those state interests ‘of the highest order’ can justify” government interference. 

Adopting the argument raised in the amicus brief, Justice Gorsuch emphasized the centrality of these constitutional protections.

"The First Amendment stands as a bulwark against any effort to prescribe an orthodoxy of views, reflecting a belief that each American enjoys an inalienable right to speak his mind and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for finding truth. Laws like Colorado’s, which suppress speech based on viewpoint, represent an egregious assault on both commitments."

The Court’s ruling reinforces that the government may not silence disfavored viewpoints under the guise of professional regulation. By restoring strict scrutiny to laws that target religious speech, the decision safeguards not only counselors, but all Americans whose speech is shaped by conscience and belief.

Ultimately, Chiles stands as a significant reaffirmation of the First Amendment’s enduring promise: that the government cannot prescribe what shall be orthodox in matters of opinion, nor punish those who speak differently. The Wagner Center was privileged to pariicipate in this case and gives all the glory to God.