Supreme Court Moves to Redefine Faith, Power, and the Vote in Wildest Term Yet

WASHINGTON DC — The U.S. Supreme Court began its new term with two contentious cases that could reshape the legal landscape for free speech, elections, and states’ rights. In its first week, the justices heard Chiles v. Salazar and Bost v. Illinois, both drawing national attention as indicators of how the court’s conservative majority may rule on politically charged issues ahead of the 2024 election cycle.

The case of Chiles v. Salazar centers on Kaley Chiles, a licensed Christian counselor from Colorado who uses faith-based therapy with minors to discuss sexual orientation and gender identity. Colorado law bans conversion therapy for minors, defining it as a harmful and unscientific practice that seeks to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ban in 2024, ruling that the law regulates professional conduct rather than speech.

Chiles argues the law violates her First Amendment rights because her counseling involves consensual, private conversations initiated by clients seeking guidance based on her faith. During oral arguments last week, several conservative justices appeared sympathetic to her claim. Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether Colorado’s law unfairly targets one viewpoint by allowing counselors to affirm same-sex attraction while prohibiting those who discuss changing it. Justice Elena Kagan, typically aligned with the court’s liberal wing, also pressed the state to clarify whether such regulations cross into speech suppression.

If the court sides with Chiles, the decision could overturn bans on conversion therapy in more than 20 states and the District of Columbia, marking a major shift in LGBTQ protections.

On the same day, the court also heard Bost v. Illinois, a case filed by Rep. Mike Bost, a Republican from Illinois’s 12th Congressional District. Bost challenges Illinois’ election law that permits mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted up to 14 days afterward. He claims that policy conflicts with federal law establishing uniform election days for federal contests.

Lower federal courts previously dismissed Bost’s suit, finding that he lacked standing because he won his election by a wide margin and was not personally harmed by the rule. However, during oral arguments, several justices, including Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, appeared open to expanding the definition of standing to include procedural injury, even when the outcome of an election was unaffected.

Legal analysts warn that a ruling in Bost’s favor could open the door for widespread litigation challenging state election procedures, potentially disrupting mail-in voting systems used across the country.

The court’s docket this term includes additional election-related and constitutional cases, including a Louisiana redistricting dispute that could alter how the Voting Rights Act is enforced. The state’s newly drawn map includes two majority-Black districts after a federal court ruled the previous map diluted Black voting strength. Now, a group identifying as “non-African American voters” claims the new map violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The justices will determine whether the revised map constitutes racial gerrymandering or a legitimate remedy under the Voting Rights Act.

Later this fall, the court is set to hear two cases testing presidential power. One involves whether former President Donald Trump lawfully imposed broad tariffs on imports without congressional approval. Another, Trump v. Slaughter, questions whether a president can fire members of independent federal agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission; a decision that could ripple into the Federal Reserve and beyond.

Justice Harris Hartz of the 10th Circuit, dissenting in the Chiles case before it reached the high court, wrote that “the government and its supporters would like to bypass the marketplace of ideas and declare victory for their preferred ideas by fiat.” That sentiment captures much of what observers expect from the court’s term: an ideological clash over who defines constitutional limits; the states, Congress, or the individual.

-------------------

At Cleveland 13 News, we strive to provide accurate, up-to-date, and reliable reporting. If you spot an error, omission, or have information that may need updating, please email us at tips@cleveland13news.com. As a community-driven news network, we appreciate the help of our readers in ensuring the integrity of our reporting.