Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is fresh off summer recess and approaching the new term with typical insight. 

Jackson and her colleagues sat for oral argument in the case of Chiles v. Salazar this Tuesday. One of Jackson’s questions prompted an attorney to refer the justice to the First Amendment. 

The case is brought by Kaley Chiles, a licensed therapist and evangelical Christian. Chiles is allegedly barred by Colorado law from verbally dissuading her clients to pursue same-sex relationships and/or a “gender transition.” (RELATED: Left-Wing Media Frames Therapists Who Affirm Biological Reality As Practicing ‘Conversion Therapy’)

Jackson interjected with a clarifying question for Hashim M. Mooppan, a principal deputy solicitor general. Mooppan was arguing in support of Chiles. 

“So can I ask you just one final question just sort of from a very broad perspective? I’m wondering why this regulation at issue here isn’t really just the functional equivalent of [United States v. Skrmetti]. I mean, I realize that — that there were two different constitutional provisions at issue, but the regulations work in basically the same way and the question of scrutiny applies in both contexts. So it just seems odd to me that we might have a different result here.”

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Court held that a Tennessee state law prohibiting “certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause........

© The Daily Caller