Is “conversion therapy” protected speech under the First Amendment? SCOTUS weighs in.
Chiles presents an interesting discussion about the role of state government in regulating professional licensing when the professional conduct at issue consists primarily, or solely, of spoken words between a professional and a client. The majority concluded, at least under the circumstances of the case before it, that a professional’s right to free speech outweighs the State’s interest in ensuring that the services rendered comport with the prevailing standards. The counter argument as presented by Justice Jackson in dissent would allow States to enforce professional standards of care, even when doing so would limit a professional’s right to free expression.