[ad_1]
2025 was the year of remedial education for the Colorado General Assembly.
Since legislators in the majority just can’t seem to understand the First Amendment, they got schooled by the courts on multiple occasions.
Constitution 101: the First Amendment forbids government agencies, federal, state or local, from enacting a law or regulation “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.”
The government cannot quash or coerce speech, establish religion or prevent its exercise. If state legislators and regulators learn these principles, taxpayers will not have to foot the bill for yet another needless trip to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Lesson one: Agencies cannot abridge free speech by forcing people to parrot the government’s ideological message. That’s called coerced speech. A week ago, a Biden-appointed federal judge blocked Colorado from enforcing a 2025 law, House Bill 1161, that requires cigarette pack-style health warnings on gas stoves and imposes a fine of up to $20,000 per violation if they don’t.
The judge agreed with the plaintiffs, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, that the law likely infringes on their First Amendment freedoms. “The court disagrees that the labeling requirement merely enables customers to access information — the only reason customers can access this information is because the State compels peddlers of gas stoves to speak it,” the court ruled. “Further … whether the information is truthful and accurate is subject to substantial disagreement within the scientific community.”
In addition to familiarizing themselves with the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers v. Weiser decision, legislators will want to read the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in the Colorado case 303 Creative LLC vs Elenis and the cases it cites as homework.
Lesson two: The government cannot abridge free speech by censoring it. Earlier this year, Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor, defended her First Amendment rights to the Supreme Court. A 2019 law prohibits counselors from helping clients come to terms with their biological sex through talk therapy. The law threatens counselors with thousands of dollars in fines and a potential loss of license unless they stick to government-approved speech. Based on the justices’ questions during oral argument, the Colorado law is likely to be struck down.
In addition to familiarizing themselves with the Chiles v. Salazar case, legislators will want to read Riley v. National Federation of the Blind of N.C., Inc. and the National Institute of Family & Life Advocates. v. Becerra decisions as homework.
Lesson three: The government cannot establish religion, or prohibit its exercise. Laws must be neutral toward religion neither advancing nor hindering its practice, and the government cannot discriminate against people for their beliefs. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court received 19 friend-of-the-court briefs from 22 states, numerous representatives from policy and law think tanks and various faith traditions, and Colorado families urging the Supreme Court to hear St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, a suit brought by the Archdiocese of Denver, two Catholic parishes, and two parents of preschool-age children. Colorado has been excluding Catholic preschool providers from its “universal” state preschool program for upholding church doctrines. Catholic families seeking a preschool education that aligns with their faith must pay out of pocket while other families get 15 hours of preschool education for free. That’s not fair or consistent with the First Amendment.
The state should have learned this lesson earlier this year when it settled a lawsuit brought by Camp IdRaHaJe, a Christian summer camp. The camp can continue to operate its summer programming without compromising its policies regarding biological sex. The state agreed to update its guidelines and website to clarify that “churches, synagogues, mosques, or any other place that is principally used for religious purposes” are exempt from state dictates that force licensed resident camps to permit campers to use dorms and restrooms of the opposite sex.
In addition to familiarizing themselves with Camp IdRaHaJe Association v. Roy, legislators will want to read the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission decision as homework.
While it’s a heavy reading list, once completed, legislators and regulators can be confident that they will start the new year equipped to establish laws and regulations that are actually consistent with First Amendment rights.
Krista Kafer is a Sunday Denver Post columnist.
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
[ad_2]
Krista Kafer
Source link
