Chiles v. Salazar · ¶24

Turning to the merits, both the district court and the Tenth Circuit denied Ms. Chiles's request for a preliminary injunction. The courts recognized that Ms. Chiles provides only “talk therapy.” 116 F. 4th, at 1193; see App. 152a. And they acknowledged that Colorado's law regulates the “verbal language” she may use. 116 F. 4th, at 1208; see App. 152a. But, the courts held, the main thrust of the State's law is to delineate which “treatments” and “therapeutic modalit[ies]” are permissible. 116 F. 4th, at 1208, 1210; see App. 151a. Accordingly, the courts reasoned that Colorado's law is best understood as regulating “professional conduct.” 116 F. 4th, at 1206, 1208, 1214; see App. 151a, 155a. At most, they continued, Colorado's law regulates speech only “incidentally” to professional conduct. 116 F. 4th, at 1204; see App. 155a. As a result, the courts concluded, Colorado's law triggers no…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.