Chiles v. Salazar · ¶56

Seeking to take up this challenge, Colorado contends that its law falls within a long tradition of permissible content regulation. It's a line of argument that comes with a daunting burden. Under our precedents, the State must present “persuasive” historical evidence in order to overcome our “especia[l]” “reluctan[ce] to mark off new categories of speech for diminished constitutional protection.” NIFLA, 585 U. S., at 767 (internal quotation marks omitted). Still, Colorado insists, it can carry that burden in this case because States have traditionally enjoyed wide latitude to proscribe “substandard care” even when that involves regulating the content of speech. Brief for Respondents 16. As evidence, Colorado points to the history of state laws licensing the practice of medicine, regulating informed consent, and permitting tort suits for medical malpractice. Id., at 23–36. The dissent…

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