I have finished editing Chiles v. Salazar for the Barnett/Blackman supplement. This is a fascinating case. Based on the lopsided 8-1 vote, my initial take was that this case didn't add much to the doctrine. But on further reflection, I think it is a very good teaching tool. Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion ably summarizes doctrine with regard to both content discrimination and viewpoint discrimination. Moreover, I've always found Holder v. HLP to be a difficult decision to teach. Gorsuch summarizes HLP and applies it to a much more relatable context. On the flip side, Justice Jackson continues the path charted by Justice Breyer of narrowly reading free speech doctrine in the commercial context. Methinks KBJ suffers from Lochnerphobia. Finally, Chiles pairs nicely as a thematic matter with Skrmetti, Mahmoud, and the Title IX case.
Chiles may be worth adding to the casebook, and dropping out some of the older-ish cases.
The post Edited Version of <i>Chiles v. Salazar</i> for Barnett/Blackman supplement appeared first on Reason.com.
