Justice Jackson's dissent in Chiles v. Salazar reveals a dangerous hostility to free speech protections
Source: "JONATHAN TURLEY: Justice Jackson’s 'Chiles' dissent offers troubling view of free speech | Fox News." April 2, 2026. www.foxnews.com
The Gist
Justice Jackson stood alone against eight other Supreme Court justices who protected counselors' right to discuss sexual orientation issues with clients. Turley argues this shows Jackson is hostile to free speech and wants the government to silence views it disagrees with, similar to how COVID-19 dissenting voices were wrongly censored.
Conclusion
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's lone dissent in Chiles v. Salazar demonstrates a troubling pattern of hostility toward free speech that threatens First Amendment protections
Premises
- Jackson dissented alone while eight other justices (including liberal colleagues) ruled that Colorado could not ban counselors from discussing sexual orientation change
- Jackson characterized allowing such speech as opening 'a can of worms' and preferred silencing dissenting voices 'in the name of science'
- Jackson attempted to redefine protected speech as mere 'conduct' to justify government suppression of viewpoints
- Even liberal Justice Kagan criticized Jackson's approach as collapsing the distinction between viewpoint-based and content-based speech restrictions
- Jackson's approach mirrors censorship tactics used during COVID-19 when dissenting scientific views were suppressed as 'conspiracy theories'
- Many previously censored COVID-19 positions (lab origin theory, mask efficacy questions, natural immunity) were later vindicated by scientific evidence
Assumptions
- Free speech protections should extend to controversial topics including sexual orientation counseling
- Government should not determine which scientific or therapeutic viewpoints are acceptable
- The COVID-19 censorship experience demonstrates the dangers of suppressing dissenting views
- Jackson's judicial philosophy represents a broader threat to First Amendment jurisprudence
- A justice's dissenting opinions reveal their true constitutional philosophy