Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is once again warning of a growing threat to the nation. In her only dissent Tuesday Chiles vs. SalazarJackson noted that “to be completely honest, no one knows what will happen next.”
The ominous tone stemmed from the fact that free speech had prevailed over state-imposed orthodoxy in a Colorado case. Eight justices, including her two liberal colleagues, ruled that Colorado cannot prevent licensed counselors from “any practice or treatment” that “attempts or purports to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of a minor.”
The victory for free speech was catastrophic for Jackson and many on the left. If counselors were to discuss the causes and basis for changes in sexual orientation, Jackson claimed, it would “open a can of worms.” It would be far better for the majority to simply silence such dissenting voices in the name of science.
COLORADO TRIED TO QUIET ME BECAUSE OF GENDER CONFUSED CHILDREN. The Supreme Court just ruled 8-1 in my favor
The dissent in Chile is just the latest example of this Chilling case law from Judge Jacksonincluding an outspoken rejection of the values of freedom of expression. Consider the attitudes of her colleagues that Jackson finds so atrocious.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivers a joint lecture, as part of the Flannery Lecture Series, in the ceremonial courtroom of the U.S. Courthouse on March 9, 2026 in Washington, D.C. (Maxine Wallace/The Washington Post)
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the First Amendment “reflects a judgment that every American possesses an unalienable right to think and speak freely, and a belief in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means of discovering the truth…any law that suppresses expression on the basis of viewpoint represents a ‘blatant’ attack on both obligations.”
What a nightmare.
Instead, Jackson would have explained the ban on anything considered “conversion therapy” as “conduct” and not speech. It’s that simple. You simply impose an orthodoxy and then treat any dissenters as regulated by their behavior, not their views.
Justice Elena Kagan could not suppress her frustration with her colleague, noting that “[b]Because the state has suppressed one side of a debate while helping the other, the constitutional question is clear.” She added that Jackson’s view “relies on reimagining—and thus collapsing—the established distinction between position-based and other content-based speech restrictions.”
Other countries have embraced Jackson’s tolerant approach to speech restrictions. Recently, Malta failed to convict a man who faced five months in prison for merely speaking about his own abolition of homosexuality due to a religious conversion.
Jackson is said to have explained the ban on anything considered “conversion therapy” as “conduct” and not speech. It’s that simple. You simply impose an orthodoxy and then treat any dissenters as regulated by their behavior, not their views.
Of course, we just experienced a pandemic when censorship and orthodoxy were dressed up as science. Leading scientific figures were suspended and harassed. Such was the case with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration and has been an outspoken critic of COVID-19 policies.
Bhattacharya was targeted for his divergent views on health policy, including his opposition to widespread school and business closures.
JONATHAN TURLEY: EVEN THE WASHINGTON POST ADMITS JACK SMITH WAS WRONG ON FREE SPEECH
He and other scientists were later proven right. European allies who did not close their schools did much better than us, including avoiding a national mental health and learning crisis. We simply never had that debate.
He was recently honored with the prestigious “Intellectual Freedom” award from the American Academy of Sciences and Letters. He is also now the 18th director of the National Institutes of Health.
NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya testifies during the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies hearing on oversight of the National Institutes of Health in the Rayburn Building on Tuesday, March 17, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc)
Yet years ago, the courts, the media, and politicians collectively treated dissent as “conspiracy theories.”
JUSTICE JACKSON PRESSES LAWYER IN IDAHO TO ‘TREATE TRANSGENDER WOMEN DIFFERENTLY THAN CIS WOMEN’
Some argued that the origin of the virus was likely the Chinese research laboratory in Wuhan. That position was labeled by the Washington Post as a “debunked the ‘coronavirus’ conspiracy theory.” New York Times Science and Health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli called any mention of the laboratory theory is ‘racist’.
Federal agencies now support the laboratory theory as the most likely based on scientific evidence.
Likewise, many questioned the efficacy of those blue surgical masks and supported natural immunity against the virus – the government later recognized both positions.
LAW students eager to battle corrosive campus ‘CANCEL CULTURE’ SPREADING NATIONALLY
Others question the so-called one and a half meter rule, which has closed many businesses, because it is not supported by science.
In testimony before Congress, Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) from 1984 to 2022, later admitted that the rule “just appeared” and was “not based on data.”
Dr. Anthony Fauci, White House chief medical adviser and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, attends an event with First Lady Jill Biden to urge Americans to get vaccinated before the holidays, during a virtual COVID-19 event with AARP at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, DC, December 9, 2022. (Saul Loeb/AFP)
But not only has it resulted in heavily enforced rules (and meltdowns) in public spaces, but the media has further shut out dissenting critics.
PARENTS, NOT BUREAUCRATS, are raising America’s children and the Supreme Court agrees
For years, experts have portrayed those who question gender reassignment surgery and treatments as bigots. Now, leading medical associations and European countries have decided that such procedures should generally not be permitted.
It was all orthodoxy disguised as science.
Yet Judge Jackson views the protection of dissenting scientific and professional views as a “can of worms” that the courts must avoid in favor of state- and association-mandated truths. She wrote that allowing such opposing views “ultimately poses serious harm to the health and well-being of Americans.”
Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stands as she and members of the Supreme Court pose for a new group portrait after joining the Supreme Court at the Supreme Court Building in Washington, DC, on October 7, 2022. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Please note that advisors can still be sued for damages they cause as a result of malpractice or negligence. Indeed, recently in New York a jury awarded Fox Varian $2 million22, due to the double mastectomy performed on her when she was a minor.
State associations may also publish positions on such therapy, seeking to convince both professionals and the public of best practices for children.
None of that was enough for Judge Jackson or for the state of Colorado. Ironically, Colorado has now managed to dramatically strengthen free speech while repeatedly failing to restrict it. Democratic lawmakers have made the state perhaps the most hostile to free speech in the country.
The Colorado Supreme Court wanted to exclude President Donald Trump from the vote. While many of us viewed Trump’s views on the 2020 election as protected speech, Colorado treated it as conduct and advocacy for insurrection.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS ADVICE
It was Colorado that tried to force bakers, photographers and web designers to produce work in favor of gay marriage, despite their religious objections. Each attempt was supported by the Tenth Circuit and failed spectacularly before the Supreme Court.
While many of us celebrate this victory for free speech, these advocates denounce the ruling in apocalyptic terms.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Most chillingly, Jackson is now routinely called the model for new nominees, including the push to immediately give the Supreme Court a liberal majority.
If so, Jackson’s radical views on constitutional interpretation could be adopted in a newly constituted Supreme Court. To paraphrase Chile’s decision: “to be very honest, we know exactly what will happen then.”
CLICK HERE TO JONATHAN TURLEY
