The Constitution Still Speaks: Repeatedly Restraining State Power in Colorado

Jonathan Turley’s recent critique of Colorado’s latest legislative efforts offers a sobering reminder that the First Amendment remains under persistent pressure, not from foreign adversaries, but too often from state actors. His analysis underscores a troubling pattern. State regimes, convinced of the ideological certainty of their policy aims, too often attempt to regulate speech in ways that the Constitution plainly forbids.

At issue is Colorado’s continued effort to impose restrictions on speech, particularly in professional and counseling contexts, despite repeated judicial rebukes. As Turley notes, these efforts repeatedly fail under court scrutiny, paradoxically strengthening First Amendment protections rather than diminishing them. Indeed, courts consistently reaffirm that viewpoint discrimination (government favoring one set of ideas over another) is “egregious” and incompatible with the Constitution’s guarantee of free expression. 

Yet, rather than yielding to these constitutional guardrails, Colorado lawmakers determinedly press forward. Turley warns that lawmakers not only adopt constitutionally suspect measures, but also design them in “sneaky” ways, often reframing speech as conduct to evade First Amendment scrutiny. This tactic, if left unchecked, empowers a state regime to impose orthodoxy while claiming neutrality, a result fundamentally at odds with our constitutional order. 

This ongoing conflict extends beyond academic debate. It reflects a deeper struggle over whether government may dictate truth in matters of conscience, morality, and belief. The Founders answered that question decisively. The First Amendment rests on the enduring conviction that truth emerges not from coercion, but from the free exchange of ideas.

In defending these foundational liberties, faith and freedom advocates assist the Supreme Court through carefully reasoned legal briefs. In Chiles, for example, I filed a legal brief reminding the Court of the mutually reinforcing nature of the First Amendment’s protections. As the brief explained, the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses “work in tandem, doubly protecting a person’s religious expression.” Such protection is not incidental to our constitutional order; it is central to it. The brief further underscored the high bar the Constitution imposes on government. Only interests “of the highest order” can justify state interference with religious expression. Colorado’s regulatory scheme failed that test. Rather than protecting citizens, it operated as “a gag order on speech rooted in sincerely held religious convictions.”

I and others committed to a constitutional vision grounded in both liberty and moral truth use these briefs to help the Court preserve the proper limits on state power. These efforts, though often unseen by the public, play a vital role in ensuring that constitutional principles remain anchored in their original meaning and enduring purpose.

As our nation approaches the celebration of 250 years of independence, this moment invites both reflection and resolve. The Constitution is not self-enforcing. It depends upon faithful adherence by those entrusted with governing authority, and the courage of citizens and public servants alike to insist upon its limits. To that end, it is encouraging that some within the Colorado legislature continue to raise principled objections, calling their colleagues back to constitutional fidelity. Their voices reflect the very best of our republican tradition.

Colorado, and all states, would do well to heed that call. The exercise of state power must always remain subordinate to the Constitution. In honoring that truth, we not only preserve our freedoms, but also reaffirm the enduring promise of a nation founded on liberty under law.