Professional Speech After Chiles v. Salazar: What Regulators Need to Know

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar marks a significant development in the evolving intersection of the First Amendment and professional regulation. By treating certain forms of licensed professional activity—particularly talk-based services—as protected speech, the Court raises important questions about the extent to which regulators may oversee professional conduct without infringing on constitutional protections.

In this webinar, Professor Claudia Haupt, a leading scholar on professional speech, will examine the legal and doctrinal foundations of the decision and explore its broader implications for regulatory bodies. The session will consider how Chiles fits within existing First Amendment jurisprudence, the ongoing debate over “professional speech” as a distinct category, and what this ruling may mean for licensing boards, enforcement actions, and future policy decisions. Participants will gain practical insight into how regulators can navigate this shifting landscape while continuing to fulfill their public protection mandates.

The session concludes with an off-the-record (i.e., not being recorded) Q&A and open discussion, offering attendees a candid forum to ask questions and exchange ideas.

Presenter: 
Claudia E. Haupt, Professor of Law and Political Science, Faculty Co-Director, Center for Health Policy and Law, Northeastern University School of Law