Supreme Court Smacks Down Colorado’s Speech Police for a Third Time

Three strikes and you’re out. That’s supposed to be how this works, right? Yet here we are again, watching Colorado get slapped down by the Supreme Court for the third time over its relentless crusade to control what people say, think, and believe about sexuality and gender.

You’d think after the first two losses they’d get the message. But no. Colorado seems determined to prove that some states just can’t help themselves when it comes to trampling constitutional rights in the name of progressive ideology.

Let’s recap this embarrassing trilogy. First came Jack Phillips, the baker who simply wanted to run his business without being forced to create messages that violated his faith. Colorado said no, you’ll bake what we tell you to bake. The Supreme Court disagreed. Then there was Lorie Smith, the web designer who faced the exact same government coercion. Once again, the high court had to remind Colorado that the First Amendment isn’t a suggestion.

Now we’ve got Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor caught in Colorado’s latest authoritarian scheme. This time the state passed a law that sounds reasonable on the surface but reveals its true colors once you look closer. Counselors can help clients with “identity exploration and development,” which sounds fine until you realize it only flows in one direction.

Here’s what that means in practice. A counselor in Colorado can help a confused boy accept that he’s actually a girl, even without his parents knowing or approving. But if a girl walks in with her parents and says she doesn’t want to transition to being a boy, that same counselor has to show her the door. The law literally mandates which conclusions are acceptable and which aren’t.

The state wrapped this speech control in the packaging of banning “conversion therapy,” knowing full well that term conjures images of barbaric practices nobody defends anymore. It’s a dishonest tactic, lumping discredited physical techniques together with simple talk therapy. When government starts dictating what mental health professionals can and can’t say to their clients, alarm bells should be ringing everywhere.

And Colorado made sure this law had teeth. Anyone who doesn’t like what a counselor is saying can file a complaint with a regulatory board. That triggers a whole disciplinary process that can end with a counselor losing their license. You see what that creates? An invitation for activists to weaponize the system, filing complaints against professionals who dare to offer perspectives the state doesn’t approve. Even a baseless accusation can destroy someone’s career and reputation.

The Supreme Court saw right through it. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for an 8-1 majority, made it crystal clear that government control over speech content is “presumptively unconstitutional.” The First Amendment doesn’t just protect speech the government likes. It protects the individual’s right to think and speak freely, especially when those thoughts challenge the prevailing orthodoxy.

What makes this Colorado law particularly offensive is that it doesn’t ban counselors from discussing sexuality and gender at all. It just dictates what they’re allowed to conclude. Gorsuch nailed it when he wrote that attempting to control the opinions or perspectives someone may express presents “even greater dangers” than other speech restrictions.

Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, somehow arguing that there’s no meaningful difference between physical interventions like electric shocks and simply talking with someone. She actually claimed that banning certain speech affects speech “only incidentally.” Read that again. A ban on speech only incidentally affects speech. That’s the kind of pretzel logic you have to embrace to justify government thought control.

The score now stands at Supreme Court 3, Colorado 0. You’d think that would settle things, but something tells me Colorado isn’t done trying. There’s a certain type of ideological zealotry that can’t accept that other people might hold different views, might want to live differently, might seek help that doesn’t conform to the approved narrative.

What we’re watching isn’t really about counseling or cakes or websites. It’s about whether we still have room in this country for disagreement, for conscience, for the radical notion that the government doesn’t get to mandate what we believe or say. Colorado keeps testing those boundaries, and the Supreme Court keeps reminding them where the line is drawn.

Maybe the fourth time will be the charm. Or maybe Colorado will finally learn what the rest of us already know. The First Amendment means something, and no amount of good intentions or progressive policy goals can override it.

Related: Politico Got Caught Lying About Trump and FEMA Disaster Relief