Ketanji Brown Jackson Questions Attorney on Gender Affirming Care in Chiles v. Salazar

Legal Precedent and Medical Treatment

• 💡 The court has previously stated that labels do not matter in certain legal cases, citing examples like Bunning.
• 🎯 Arguments are made that providing advice on how to commit an act, as in Holder, is conceptually similar to other forms of material support.
• ⚠️ A key problem identified is the level of generality when applying historical regulations to modern contexts.

Historical Regulation and Speech

• ⚖️ While there's a historical tradition of regulating contempt of court and breach of peace, there isn't a long history of regulating these solely based on speech.
• 🔬 The transcript highlights the absence of historical regulation of medical treatment that consists solely of speech.

Gender Affirming Care vs. Child Therapy

• ❓ Justice Jackson questions whether the federal government agrees with a scenario where the distinction between child therapy and gender-affirming care is irrelevant.
• 📌 The argument is made that Colorado's position could lead to states banning not only cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers but also talk therapy.
• 🧠 A stark historical example is presented: in the 1970s, being gay was considered a mental illness, implying states could have made it illegal for therapists to counsel gay patients, which is deemed incorrect under the First Amendment.