Chiles v. Salazar · ¶25

At the Tenth Circuit, Judge Hartz dissented. As he saw it, the majority committed “several fundamental errors.” 116 F. 4th, at 1227. While Colorado's law may ban conduct in other applications, he observed, with respect to Ms. Chiles it regulates only what she may and may not say. Id., at 1231. And under this Court's precedents, he argued, that kind of speech regulation triggers far more demanding scrutiny than mere rational-basis review. Id., at 1226–1229. Nor, Judge Hartz continued, does the fact that Ms. Chiles happens to hold a professional license change the equation. Id., at 1229–1230. To the contrary, he said, the majority's effort to recast Ms. Chiles's speech as “professional conduct” amounted to little more “than a labeling game.” Id., at 1231 (internal quotation marks omitted).

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