Center for Individual Rights

Darpana Sheth, General Counsel for the Center for Individual Rights, issued the following statement:

“Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling should end the fiction that governments can silence licensed professionals simply by calling it professional regulation. A therapist’s words to a willing client are speech—and the First Amendment protects them whether the state finds those words inconvenient or not. Chiles v. Salazar is a victory for every professional the government has tried to muzzle through the back door of licensing law, and it goes straight to the heart of what we are fighting for in Louisiana. Granting a license to practice does not give the government a license to censor.”

Chiles v. Salazar has made clear that professional licensing does not create a First Amendment-free zone. A license to practice does not give the government a license to censor. We look forward to pressing that principle on behalf of Julie Alleman and Juliet Catrett.

CIR Statement on Chiles v. Salazar and What It Means for Our Louisiana Case - Center for Individual Rights Yesterday, the Supreme Court delivered a clear rebuke to states that try to regulate professional speech as conduct. In Chiles v. Salazar, the Court held that Colorado’s ban on talk therapy regulates speech based on viewpoint—and that courts must apply strict scrutiny, not the toothless rationa...

The First Amendment doesn’t stop at the login screen. When a government page is open to the public for comments, officials can’t delete criticism and ban a speaker because they don’t like the message. CIR is representing Sergio Rodriguez to restore his free speech rights.

Read more:

Advocate for Military Families Banned from Naval Base’s page - Center for Individual Rights Rodriguez v. Bohner