Breaking Down Chiles v Salazar: Speech Rights and State Laws
Failed to add items
Add to basket failed.
Add to wishlist failed.
Remove from wishlist failed.
Adding to library failed
Follow podcast failed
Unfollow podcast failed
-
Narrated by:
-
By:
About this listen
If you’re curious about how the law works behind the scenes, why this case matters for free speech, and what the Supreme Court’s decision could mean going forward, stick around for the breakdown right here on Lawyer Talk.
Welcome back to Lawyer Talk. I’m Steve Palmer, and today I’m breaking down one of the hottest Supreme Court cases out there: Chiles v. Salazar. Everyone’s been talking about Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy, the constitutional debates it set off, and all the political banter that comes with it. But on this episode, I’m cutting through the noise to look at what this case really means from a lawyer’s perspective.
I’ll walk you through how this case landed in front of the Supreme Court, the legal hurdles and arguments both sides faced, and what makes the ruling so significant—not just for the political headlines, but for anyone who cares about free speech and First Amendment rights.
Along the way, I’ll explain how courts actually judge laws that touch on constitutional freedoms, break down the difference between rational basis and strict scrutiny, and highlight why this Court’s decision matters to all of us.
3 key takeaways from the case:
- Strict Scrutiny Reigns: When laws touch on free speech—even in professional settings like therapy—courts should apply strict scrutiny. That means the government needs a compelling reason to regulate, and the law must be as narrowly tailored as possible, as discussed at 08:15.
- Content-Based Regulation Is Dangerous: Colorado’s law allowed affirming one viewpoint (supporting gender transition) but banned therapists from supporting the opposite. The Supreme Court made it clear that picking and choosing which viewpoints are allowed is “the worst of all” under the First Amendment at 13:04.
- You Can’t Just Relabel Speech as Conduct: Lower courts tried to justify the law by calling talk therapy “professional conduct” instead of speech. The Supreme Court wasn’t buying it—regulation of talk is still regulation of speech (10:15).
Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.
Recorded at Channel 511.
Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.
Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.
He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.
Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.
For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense.
Copyright 2026 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law
Mentioned in this episode:
Circle 270 Media Podcast Consultants
Circle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com