{"podcast":{"title":"Swear on the Stand","slug":"swear-on-the-stand-7111404","podcast_index_feed_id":7111404,"rss_url":"https://anchor.fm/s/fddb5314/podcast/rss","website_url":"https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/danielswear","image_url":"https://d3t3ozftmdmh3i.cloudfront.net/staging/podcast_uploaded_nologo/42490093/42490093-1732466737482-64af1021e8b8d.jpg","author":"Daniel W. Swear","episode_count":193,"summary":"Court decisions are complex and difficult to digest. This podcast is designed to educating listeners on current legal decisions in a fun and interesting way. Researched by me and produced with the assistance of AI.","last_synced_at":"2026-07-10T22:18:10.447360+00:00","page_url":"https://stenobird.com/podcast/swear-on-the-stand-7111404"},"episode":{"title":"Chiles v. Salazar: The First Amendment and Talk Therapy","slug":"chiles-v-salazar-the-first-amendment-and-talk-therapy","published_at":"2026-04-15T14:00:00+00:00","page_url":"https://stenobird.com/podcast/swear-on-the-stand-7111404/chiles-v-salazar-the-first-amendment-and-talk-therapy","show_page_url":"https://stenobird.com/podcast/swear-on-the-stand-7111404","url":"https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/danielswear/episodes/Chiles-v--Salazar-The-First-Amendment-and-Talk-Therapy-e3hbupi","audio_url":"https://anchor.fm/s/fddb5314/podcast/play/117881074/https%3A%2F%2Fd3ctxlq1ktw2nl.cloudfront.net%2Fstaging%2F2026-3-3%2F9f01ee95-6686-cfa6-8d15-423cfd4fa0df.m4a","summary":"This episode outlines the Supreme Court's 2026 decision in Chiles v. Salazar , which addressed whether Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors violates the First Amendment rights of licensed counselors. Petitioner Kaley Chiles argued that the law unconstitutionally restricted her use of "talk therapy" to help clients achieve their personal goals regarding sexual orientation and gender identity. Writing for the majority, Justice Gorsuch concluded that because the law permits certain viewpoints while forbidding others, it constitutes unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination against professional speech. The Court rejected the state's claim that the law merely regulated professional conduct , ruling instead that the government cannot enforce a speech orthodoxy simply by labeling medical discourse as a "treatment." In contrast, Justice Jackson’s dissent argued that states possess the police power to regulate harmful medical practices, maintaining that professional speech should be subject to less scrutiny when it is incidental to medical care . Ultimately, the ruling underscores the Court's commitment to protecting the free marketplace of ideas , even within the context of licensed professional relationships.","meta_description":"This episode outlines the Supreme Court's 2026 decision in Chiles v. Salazar , which addressed whether Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors vio…","key_points":[],"chapters":[],"topics":[],"duration_seconds":2500,"processing_state":"not_requested","actions":[{"name":"request_transcript","method":"POST","url":"https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/swear-on-the-stand-7111404/episodes/chiles-v-salazar-the-first-amendment-and-talk-therapy/transcription-requests","description":"Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode."},{"name":"read_markdown","method":"GET","url":"https://stenobird.com/podcast/swear-on-the-stand-7111404/chiles-v-salazar-the-first-amendment-and-talk-therapy.md","description":"Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource."}]}}