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

How do you make sure every defendant gets a fair trial when the stakes couldn’t be higher?

Welcome back to Lawyer Talk. I’m Steve Palmer, and today I’m taking on a question that comes up all the time—both in my legal practice and right here on the podcast: when can the state link up, or consolidate, separate criminal cases into one trial?

And, maybe more importantly, when should they be kept apart?

I’m joined by Troy, our resident law student, as we dig into why courts might want to handle cases together—saving time and money sounds good in theory, right?

But, as I explain, there are real risks for the accused when multiple charges get bundled, especially the threat of “spillover evidence” that might unfairly sway a jury.

We walk through the legal rules in Ohio, talk about why the evidence of past acts is sometimes— but not always—allowed, and use examples from date rape allegations to safecracking capers to show where the lines get drawn.

I’ve argued some of these issues in the Ohio Supreme Court myself, so you’re getting an inside look at how advocates actually fight to keep things fair.

If you want to know what makes cases “simple and direct” enough for consolidation, and why fairness means sometimes putting extra work on the prosecution, this is the episode for you.

Here are three key takeaways for legal professionals and curious minds:

1. Consolidation vs. Prejudice: While the law allows separate cases to be joined for efficiency if they're of a similar nature, defense attorneys must argue "prejudice"—meaning it's unfair for a defendant to face multiple allegations together because the jury might assume guilt based on repeating accusations.
2. Evidence Exceptions Matter: Prior bad acts (404(b)) can't generally be used to simply show character or propensity, but they may be admissible if they establish things like identity, intent, or plan. The details of how and WHY evidence comes in are crucial.
3. Simple & Direct Evidence Isn't Always So Simple: Prosecutors argue "simple and direct" evidence can keep cases joined, but Steve Palmer insists that the more inflammatory and similar the cases, the harder it is for a jury to keep them separate—especially in emotionally charged crimes like sexual assault.

Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!

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

If you want the straight legal scoop on family conflict and kidnapping statutes, you’re in the right place.

On this episode of Lawyer Talk, I tackle a question that comes up more often than you’d think: Can you kidnap your own kids?

Joining me at the table is Troy Henricksen, a law student with some excellent insights into the complexities of Ohio law. We dig into how these situations usually play out, what the law actually says about parental rights, and why having a custody order is so important—even if you think everyone’s getting along.

We also touch on a real Ohio Supreme Court case that clarifies whether parents can be criminally charged for stepping outside the boundaries of a custody agreement.

Here are 3 key takeaways from our conversation:

1. Legal Definitions Matter: In Ohio (and many other states), the law is clear—parents can be charged with kidnapping their own children if they violate custody orders. There’s no automatic exemption just because you’re the parent.
2. Custody Orders Are Critical: Without a court order outlining custody, both parents typically have equal rights. But if one parent “takes” the child outside of those court-defined boundaries, it could escalate into a criminal matter.
3. Get the Rules in Writing: Even if things are amicable, having a court order in place sets clear expectations and prevents “wishy-washy” situations that can become legally risky.

Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!

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