supreme court

Washington Counselor Asks Court to Protect Free Speech

Brian Tingley, a Christian counselor in Washington state, is seeking the restoration of his constitutional rights after the recent U.S. Supreme Court landmark decision protecting counselors’ speech, Chiles v. Salazar.

Tingley is a licensed marriage and family therapist with over 20 years of experience who counsels adult and minor clients. He engages only in talk therapy: listening to clients, asking questions and helping them pursue behavioral changes according to their desires and goals.

As a Christian, Tingley affirms the Bible’s teachings on relationships, sexuality and marriage.

However, Washington state – prohibiting so-called “conversion therapy” – makes it illegal for Tingley to help minor clients leave unwanted homosexuality or embrace their biological sex. Washington requires him – and all counselors – to speak only in a state-approved way, pushing clients towards homosexuality or “transgenderism.”

This kind of speech code, however, is a clear violation of the First Amendment’s free speech clause.

On March 31, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a momentous decision striking down Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. Colorado’s law is essentially identical to Washington’s.

“While the First Amendment protects many and varied forms of expression, the spoken word is perhaps the quintessential form of protected speech,” Justice Gorsuch wrote for the Court’s majority in Chiles v. Salazar. “And that is exactly the kind of expression in which Ms. Chiles seeks to engage.” So too with Brian Tingley.

Justice Gorsuch added, “The First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.”

As a result of the Court’s decision in Chiles, Tingley – who had previously challenged Washington’s law in court but lost – is asking a lower court to reconsider his case. He is being represented by attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

“Washington’s law bans voluntary conversations based on the state’s ideological crusade to impose gender ideology and to reject common sense,” said ADF Senior Counsel Hal Frampton, director of the Center for Conscience Initiatives. “This is censorship pure and simple, and it violates the First Amendment — as affirmed recently in an 8-1 Supreme Court decision.”

Frampton added,

We are urging the district court to finally allow justice to prevail for Brian, protect his “inalienable right to think and speak freely,” and free him to provide excellent counseling to families and young people who seek his counseling.

Tingley isn’t the only counselor looking for his First Amendment rights to be restored in the wake of Chiles.

In May, the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Terri Koschnick and Joy Buchman, licensed counselors who are challenging the Badger State’s law prohibiting counselors from helping minor clients with unwanted same-sex attraction and sexual identity confusion.

Hopefully, counselors nationwide will soon – thanks to Chiles – be free to help all individuals seeking to live according to a biblical sexual ethic. The Daily Citizen will keep you updated on important developments.

The case is Tingley v. Brown.

If you or someone you know is struggling with homosexuality or transgenderism, Focus on the Family offers a one-time complimentary consultation with our ministry’s professionally trained counseling staff. The consultation is free due to generous donor support.

To reach Focus on the Family’s counseling service by phone, call 1-800-A-Family (232-6459) weekdays 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (Mountain Time). Please be prepared to leave your contact information for a counselor or chaplain to return a call to you as soon as possible. Alternatively, you can fill out our Counseling Consultation Request Form.

We also offer local referrals for licensed counselors who align with the mission and values of Focus on the Family.

Related articles and resources:

The Supreme Court’s ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ruling: Four Truths You Should Know

Supreme Court Smacks Down Colorado’s ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ban in 8-1 Decision

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Counseling Censorship Case

Judge Dismisses Therapist’s Lawsuit Over Ban on Counseling for Same-Sex Attraction, Gender Identity

Christian Counselor Sues for Right to Talk to Minors About Same-Sex Attraction, Gender Identity Issues

Is Therapy to Leave Homosexuality Damaging? New Review Says, ‘No Proof of Harm’

Therapy Bans Threaten Religious Freedom, Free Speech and Parental Rights

Why We Support Therapy for Unwanted Homosexuality

Photo from Alliance Defending Freedom.

Clarence Thomas Becomes Nation’s Second Longest-Serving Supreme Court Justice

Congratulations, Justice Clarence Thomas!

On Wednesday, May 6, Thomas officially became the second longest-serving justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, serving for 34 years and 195 days – that’s 12,605 days.

Justice Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court by former President George H.W. Bush, and was confirmed as an associate justice on October 15, 1991, in a 52-48 vote following a brutal confirmation hearing process.

The 77-year-old Catholic justice beat out Justice Stephen Johnson Field, who was nominated to the Supreme Court by former President Abraham Lincoln, and served from 1863 until 1897.

Thomas, the second African American to serve on the Court, has been one of the Court’s most ardent defenders of originalism – interpreting the Constitution based on what it meant at the time it was written – rather than reinterpreting the text as judges might like it to mean today.

Thomas has been in the majority in numerous crucial decisions, including in holding the Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion (in Dobbs); in determining race-based college admissions violate the Constitution (in Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard); and in determining the Constitution permits states to protect kids from harmful “transgender” medical interventions (U.S. v. Skrmetti).

Justice Thomas has lived a remarkable life. He grew up in abject poverty in the segregated South, and was raised, along with his brother, by his grandparents.

Thomas studied for the Catholic priesthood for a time, before deciding to leave seminary, and turned into a radical racial revolutionary during his college years after witnessing the segregated South. He was inspired by black activists like Stokely Carmichael, H. Rap Brown and Angela Davis, among others.

After a particularly violent student demonstration, Thomas prayed and asked God to deliver him from his inner tumult, which became a crucial turning point for him.

Thomas then attended Yale Law School and worked for Missouri Attorney General John Danforth. After Danforth’s election to the U.S. Senate, Thomas followed him to Washington, D.C. and then worked in the Reagan administration in the Department of Education. He was then nominated by former President Ronald Reagan to chair the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where he served from 1982 until 1990.

Thomas then served as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the most influential appellate court in the country, before being nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice Thurgood Marshall.

If you have never read his autobiography, My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir, it is as fascinating as it is inspiring.

In a recent interview, Justice Neil Gorsuch recently sang Thomas’ praises on Fox News and gave a plug for the book.

“I adore that man. He is a great student and scholar of the Constitution. … He also has maybe the best laugh of anyone I know – a great booming laugh that echoes through the Court all the time,” Gorsuch said.

“People in the Court, he knows everybody’s name,” Gorsuch continued. “He is a man of great and deep faith. And he has lived the American story, the American dream. And if anybody wants to know more about Clarence Thomas, I just cannot recommend his book, My Grandfather’s Son, enough.”

Additionally, in 2020, an autobiographical film, Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words, was released detailing Thomas’ life, career and judicial philosophy.

You can watch a trailer for the film below:

In the film, Thomas talks about growing up with a grandfather who was extremely strict and very hard working.

When Thomas was seven years old, he recounts, “[My grandfather] says to us, ‘You are going to go to school every day. If you are sick, you’re still going. If you die, I will take your body for three days to make sure you are not faking.’ And he meant it.”

The clip has been making the rounds on X:

Justice Thomas clearly learned his lesson about the importance of hard work and dedication, which he brings to his well-reasoned, clear and scholarly opinions, year after year.

If Justice Thomas serves for two more years, he will beat out William O. Douglas to become our nation’s longest-serving Supreme Court justice.

Keep calm and carry on, Justice Thomas! We are deeply indebted to you and grateful for your service!

Related articles and resources:

Justice Thomas Warns Progressivism Opposes America’s Founding Principles

Clarence Thomas Becomes Nation’s Fifth Longest-Serving Supreme Court Justice

Celebrating Clarence Thomas’ Remarkable 32 Years on the U.S. Supreme Court

On This Independence Day, Clarence Thomas Explains What’s Great About America

Justice Clarence Thomas Spotted Laying Wreaths at Arlington Cemetery to Honor our Military

Celebrating Giants Like Justice Clarence Thomas During Black History Month

Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words

Photo from Getty Images.

The Supreme Court’s ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ruling: Four Truths You Should Know

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Colorado’s law banning so-called “conversion therapy” is likely unconstitutional, violating the First Amendment’s free speech clause.

In the 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court held the state’s “Prohibit Conversion Therapy for A Minor” law (HB19-1129), enacted in 2019, engages in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination since it prohibited therapists from voicing certain perspectives that Colorado disfavors.

Because of its speech restrictions, the law must satisfy strict scrutiny – the highest standard of judicial review, the Supreme Court said. The lower courts had erroneously applied rational-basis review – a much lower standard – in upholding the law.

The law prohibited licensed counselors from helping minor clients struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction or sexual identity confusion. The Orwellian speech code mandated counselors speak in a specific, state-mandated way when counseling minor clients.

Counselors could only help clients embrace homosexuality or a “transgender” identity. The law prohibited counselors from helping clients, through simple talk therapy, turn away from homosexual thoughts, behaviors and identities, or resolve feelings of gender dysphoria and embrace their biological sex.

“Under our precedents, viewpoint restrictions like that are not subject to mere rational-basis review or intermediate scrutiny,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the Court’s majority. “Rather, they represent ‘an egregious form of content discrimination’ where First Amendment concerns are at their most ‘blatant.’”

The case stems from Christian Colorado counselor Kaley Chiles’ lawsuit seeking to prevent enforcement of HB19-1129 and protect her First Amendment right to speak freely in counseling conversations with minors.

“While the First Amendment protects many and varied forms of expression, the spoken word is perhaps the quintessential form of protected speech,” Gorsuch added, “And that is exactly the kind of expression in which Ms. Chiles seeks to engage.”

Justice Gorsuch continued,

The First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.

The Court’s decision is a clear win for all Americans’ free speech rights and for minors who want to find help and hope of healing from homosexuality and transgenderism.

However, you’d never know that from reading the mainstream media’s biased coverage of the Court’s ruling.

The Associated Press claimed the decision is “the latest in a line of recent cases in which the justices have [taken] a skeptical view of LGBTQ+ rights,” opining that “conversion therapy” is a “discredited practice.”

The New York Times said Colorado’s law prohibits counselors from “trying to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of L.G.B.T.Q. minors.”

NBC News called the decision “a blow to LGBTQ rights” in the opening sentence of its article on the ruling. The outlet called “conversion therapy” “widely discredited” and “ineffective,” deeming it “harmful, increasing a risk of suicide among people subjected to it.”

USA Today said “conversion therapy” is “ineffective and harmful.”

For all the smoke and mirrors proffered by other outlets, here are four truthful things you should know about the Court’s ruling.

“Conversion Therapy” Doesn’t Exist

There is no “harmful” or “discredited” practice known as “conversion therapy.” As the Daily Citizen has previously noted, “No counselor or therapist ever put out a sign saying, ‘I offer conversion therapy’ or ‘I’ll convert you from gay to straight!’ There is no such clinical practice.”

“The term was invented by activists who oppose the truth that some people with same-sex attractions or gender identity confusion who don’t want to embrace those thoughts, feelings, identities or behaviors.”

The Truth: Some individuals who experience unwanted same-sex attraction or sexual identity confusion seek counselors’ help to reach their own goals and find freedom from homosexuality and transgenderism; many individuals do find lasting freedom from these struggles.

Talk Therapy is Not Harmful

As the Court recounted in its opinion, Chiles (and other Christian counselors) does not “prescribe any medicines, perform any physical treatments, or engage in any coercive or aversive practices. All Ms. Chiles offers is talk therapy.”

A 2022 study conducted by Rev. D. Paul Sullins, Ph.D., a research professor of sociology with the Catholic University of America, found that “sexual orientation change efforts” are not associated with causing behavioral harms – unlike what the media claims.

The Truth: Talk therapy can be helpful for individuals who want to explore their past experiences, feelings, relationships, identities and behaviors and who want to live out a biblical sexual ethic.

The Court Upheld All Americans’ Free Speech Rights

The media inexplicably and incorrectly portrayed the ruling as a “blow to LGBT rights.” But the Court did not remove any “LGBT right.” Nor did it mandate any homosexual- or transgender-identified individuals receive talk therapy.

The Court merely said minor clients who want to leave homosexuality or transgenderism can receive a counselor’s help in doing so.

The Truth: The Court upheld Americans’ right to speak freely and receive counseling as they wish.

LGBT Activists Promote Conversion Therapy

LGBT activists who oppose counselors helping clients leave transgenderism, who want to trap individuals into a lifetime of confusion over their sexual identity, are the real advocates of “conversion therapy.”

These radical activists would prefer minors receive harmful, damaging and irreversible puberty blocking drugs, opposite-sex hormones and surgeries, rather than explore their feelings and identities with a licensed counselor.

This is a misguided attempt to “convert” children into looking and acting like the opposite sex, rather than helping them embrace biological reality. Most children with sexual identity confusion will desist, but transgender ideology tries to convince them – and their families – that they need to somehow “become” the opposite sex.

As commentator Allie Beth Stuckey wrote, “True, damaging ‘conversion therapy’ is the kind that convinces kids that they’re the opposite gender.”

The Truth: LGBT activists are the real proponents of harmful “conversion therapy” for children with sexual identity confusion.

Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kaley Chiles’ favor, upholding her free speech rights and the right of all licensed counselors to help minors receive the therapy they seek.

The case now goes back down to the lower court, where Colorado’s law will likely fail to meet a strict scrutiny analysis and be found unconstitutional.

The case is Chiles v. Salazar.

Related articles and resources:

Supreme Court Smacks Down Colorado’s ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ban in 8-1 Decision

Counseling for Sexual Identity Concerns: A Measured, Careful, and Compassionate approach.

What Is ‘Conversion Therapy’?

Four Things You Should Know About Michigan’s Ban on Therapy for Unwanted Homosexuality or Transgenderism

Elizabeth Woning Left Lesbianism for a Relationship with Christ – She Wants Others to Have that Same Freedom

New Study: Even Failed Efforts to Leave Homosexuality Are Not Harmful

New Study Shows Therapy to Leave Homosexuality Can Be Effective and Helpful

Photo from Getty Images.

Supreme Court Smacks Down Colorado’s ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ban in 8-1 Decision

In an 8-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled a Colorado law banning so-called conversion therapy for minors “regulates speech based on viewpoint,” violating counselors’ First Amendment rights. 

The Court’s almost-unanimous decision in Chiles v. Salazar was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offering the lone dissent. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan filed a separate concurring opinion, joined by fellow liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor. 

The case was brought by Kaley Chiles, a practicing Christian and licensed professional counselor who helps clients with a variety of issues – including unwanted sexual identity confusion and same-sex attractions.

But Colorado passed a ban on “conversion therapy” for minors in 2019, censoring Chiles’ speech. Therapists in Colorado were only allowed to help minors move toward homosexuality or transgenderism, even when this conflicted with their deeply held religious beliefs. 

Chiles does not impose her beliefs on clients but helps them work toward their own goals. The ban locked minors out of voluntary counseling conversations that could help them live according to their faith and embrace their bodily reality. 

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) allied attorney Barry Arrington filed a lawsuit on Chiles’behalf in 2022, fighting this unwarranted violation of her First Amendment rights.  

After a district court failed to stop Colorado’s therapy ban, Arrington and ADF attorneys appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in 2024. When that court ruled against Chiles, she appealed to the Supreme Court, and ADF Chief Legal Counsel Jim Campbell presented oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court last October. 

ADF called the victory a “monumental” decision for free speech, saying, “The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that counseling conversations are speech and that states cannot silence viewpoints in the counseling room.” 

Campbell, in a statement from ADF, pointed out the damage to children from counseling censorship laws that prohibit help for those struggling with sexual identity confusion: 

Kids deserve real help affirming that their bodies are not a mistake and that they are wonderfully made. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today is a significant win for free speech, common sense, and families desperate to help their children. 

States cannot silence voluntary conversations that help young people seeking to grow comfortable with their bodies.

The ruling affects laws in 23 states, along with executive orders or regulations in four states and more than 100 municipalities, that censor talk therapy for minors with unwanted homosexuality or transgenderism. It also affects similar court cases across the country. 

In his opinion, Gorsuch noted that Colorado’s law forbade “any practice or treatment … that attempts … to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity,” including any effort “to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex” (his emphasis). 

Chiles had argued that the prohibition applied to her use of normal, therapeutic talk therapy with clients, and it mandated speech that encouraged them toward homosexuality or transgenderism. 

Colorado argued that the law regulated “professional conduct,” not speech. But the Supreme Court rejected this, saying talk therapy “involves no physical interventions or medications, only the spoken word.” 

The opinion acknowledged the vital role of free speech in America: 

The First Amendment “envisions the United States as a rich and complex place” where all enjoy the “freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think.”

Gorsuch added:

This Court has long held that laws regulating speech based on its subject matter or “communicative content” are “presumptively unconstitutional.” … 

We have recognized, as well, the even greater dangers associated with regulations that discriminate based on the speaker’s point of view.

“While the First Amendment protects many and varied forms of expression, the spoken word is perhaps the quintessential form of protected speech,” the Court opined.

In her lengthy 35-page dissent – longer than Gorsuch’s opinion and Kagan’s concurring opinion combined – Jackson stated that Colorado was only regulating “medical professionals and their treatment-related speech.” 

She added, “Chiles insists … she has a constitutional right to flout Colorado’s statute and the standard of care it incorporates if a client asks her to do so.” 

Jackson tried to make a distinction between “talk” and “medical treatment,” saying Chiles had the right to oppose Colorado’s law and “freely promote conversion therapy” but “she cannot practice that therapy.” 

The rest of the Court adamantly disagreed with that baseless argument. 

Gorsuch made several key points in the Court’s emphatic rejection of Jackson’s distinction between “speech” and “therapeutic “practice.” First, he wrote: 

Licensed professionals “have a host of good-faith disagreements” about the “prudence” and “ethics” of various practices in their fields. … Medical consensus, too, is not static; it evolves and always has. A prevailing standard of care may reflect what most practitioners believe today, but it cannot mark the outer boundary of what they may say tomorrow. 

Far from a test of professional consensus, the First Amendment rests instead on a simple truth: “[T]he people lose” whenever the government transforms prevailing opinion into enforced conformity.

He went on to make a statement that captures the crux of this case: 

We do not doubt that the question “how best to help minors” struggling with issues of gender identity or sexual orientation is presently a subject of “fierce public debate.” … 

But Colorado’s law addressing conversion therapy does not just ban physical interventions. In cases like this, it censors speech based on viewpoint. Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety. Certainly, censoriousgovernments throughout history have believed the same.

But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth. However well-intentioned, any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an “egregious” assault on both of those commitments.

Colorado’s “censorious government” believed it had the right to stifle free speech and only allow the viewpoint of LGBT activists and their allies to reign in counseling offices. 

Kaley Chiles celebrated the freedom to work with minors and their families who want to live according to the Bible’s guidance for sexuality and relationships. She said: 

When my young clients come to me for counsel, they often want to discuss issues of gender and sexuality. I look forward to being able to help them when they choose the goal of growing comfortable with their bodies. 

Counselors walking alongside these young people shouldn’t be limited to promoting state-approved goals like gender transition, which often leads to harmful drugs and surgeries. The Supreme Court’s ruling is a victory for counselors and, more importantly, kids and families everywhere.

The case is Chiles v. Salazar. 

If you or someone you know is struggling with homosexuality or transgenderism, Focus on the Family offers a one-time complimentary consultation with our ministry’s professionally trained counseling staff. The consultation is free due to generous donor support.

To reach Focus on the Family’s counseling service by phone, call 1-800-A-Family (232-6459) weekdays 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (Mountain Time). Please be prepared to leave your contact information for a counselor or chaplain to return a call to you as soon as possible. Alternatively, you can fill out our Counseling Consultation Request Form.

We also offer local referrals for licensed counselors who align with the mission and values of Focus on the Family.

Related articles and resources: 

Alliance Defending Freedom: Chiles v. Salazar

Daily Citizen: 

Appeals Court Permits Colorado’s Counseling Censorship Law to Stand

Can Minors Receive Counseling Help for Unwanted Same-Sex Attraction or Sexual Identity Confusion? Federal Courts Split on Local Prohibitions.

Colorado Counselor Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Free Speech Case

Colorado Lurches to the Far Left

Four Things You Should Know About Michigan’s Ban on Therapy for Unwanted Homosexuality or Transgenderism

Is Therapy to Leave Homosexuality Damaging? New Review Says, ‘No Proof of Harm’

Therapy Bans Threaten Religious Freedom, Free Speech and Parental Rights

Why We Support Therapy for Unwanted Homosexuality

Focus on the Family: 

Counseling for Sexual Identity Concerns: A Measured, Careful, and Compassionate approach.

Resources: Homosexuality

Transgender Resources

Understanding Homosexuality

Supreme Court Rules Street Preacher Can Challenge City’s Speech Ordinance

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of a street preacher who argues a city ordinance unconstitutionally prevents him from sharing his Christian faith in public.

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in Olivier v. City of Brandon that Gabriel Olivier can challenge Brandon, Mississippi’s ordinance that restricts “expressive activity” – and therefore, Olivier’s evangelism – near a public amphitheater.

“This is not only a win for the right to share your faith in public, but also a win for every American’s right to have their day in court when their First Amendment rights are violated,” said Kelly Shackelford, president, CEO, and chief counsel for First Liberty Institute. Olivier is represented by First Liberty.

Olivier, an evangelical Christian, often stands outside of well-attended events and shares the gospel with as many people as he can. But the city of Brandon, Mississippi, adopted an ordinance that limits speech inside a small, designated “protest zone” that is far away from crowds, limiting his ability to communicate.

In one incident, Olivier disregarded the protest zone and moved closer to the crowds so he could reach more people. As a result, the city arrested him. He paid a $304 fine and was released, serving no prison time.

First Liberty published a video explaining more about Olivier’s story, which you can watch below:


Olivier subsequently challenged the law in federal court, alleging the city ordinance violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause. The district court, however, dismissed his case. The court agreed with the city’s argument that an individual previously convicted of violating a statute cannot challenge its constitutionality under federal civil rights law (§1983).

It relied on a Supreme Court decision in Heck v. Humphery that prohibits prisoners’ use of §1983 to challenge the validity of a prior conviction to obtain release from custody or monetary damages.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgement.

In its decision, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court ruling and allowed Olivier’s suit challenging the city ordinance to proceed. The Court said its Heck precedent “has no bearing on Olivier’s suit seeking a purely prospective remedy.”

Justice Elena Kagan, who authored the Court’s opinion, said, “Olivier is seeking … ‘wholly prospective’ relief – ‘only to be free from prosecutions for future violations’ of the city ordinance.”

Olivier can “sue … to enjoin future prosecutions under the city ordinance, despite his prior conviction,” Kagan said. Otherwise, Olivier would be placed in a “dilemma” to either “flout the law and risk another prosecution, or else forego speech he believes is constitutionally protected.”

Olivier’s case will now go to trial in the district court where he will argue the ordinance violates the free speech clause.

“No American should be criminally charged for sharing their faith in public,” said Nate Kellum, senior counsel at First Liberty. “This is a wonderful day for Gabe and for the First Amendment.”

“My goal from the beginning was to be granted my rights as an American citizen under our great Constitution,” said Olivier. “Now all people with deeply held Christian religious beliefs who are called to share the good news can do so in the public arena.”

The case is Olivier v. City of Brandon.

Related articles and resources:

Supreme Court To Hear Evangelist’s Religious Freedom Case

U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Case of Evangelist Banned From Sharing His Faith

Photo from Shutterstock.