noyes from slaazar first womens and src v fec
salazar v chiles
Held: Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy, as applied to Ms.
Chiles’s talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint, and the
lower courts erred by failing to apply sufficiently rigorous First
Amendment scrutiny. Pp. 7–23
A
The First Amendment “envisions the United States as a
rich and complex place” where all enjoy the “ ‘freedom to
think as you will and to speak as you think.’ ” 303 Creative
LLC v. Elenis, 600 U. S. 570, 584, 603 (2023) (quoting Boy
Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U. S. 640, 660–661 (2000))..... But
either way, the First Amendment protects the inalienable
right of every individual to decide for himself “how best to
speak.” Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc.,
487 U. S. 781, 791 (1988). In this Nation, no official—“high
or petty”—may command our tongues or silence our voices.
West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642
(1943).
1943).
Consistent with the First Amendment’s jealous protec-
tions for the individual’s right to think and speak freely,
this Court has long held that laws regulating speech based
on its subject matter or “communicative content” are “pre-
sumptively unconstitutional.” Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576
U. S. 155, 163 (2015). As a general rule, such “content-
based” restrictions trigger “strict scrutiny,” a demanding
standard that requires the government to prove its re-
striction on speech is “narrowly tailored to serve compelling
state interests.” Ibid. Under that test, it is “ ‘rare that a
regulation . . . will ever be permissible.’