A closely watched U.S. Supreme Court case could reshape professional licensure. Chiles v. Salazar, which began in Colorado over a statute regulating counseling practices, raises arguments that stretch far beyond counseling. The petitioner claims that restrictions tied to a professional license amount to restrictions on speech. If the Supreme Court were to accept that logic, almost any professional service involving words, drawings, or plans could be recast as “speech,” making it far harder for states to enforce licensing laws. A sweeping ruling could upend how states regulate licensed professions across the board—from engineers and surveyors to architects and physicians.

NSPE joined a broad coalition of professional and credentialing organizations by signing on to an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief urging the court to uphold state authority to regulate licensed professions.

An amicus brief allows organizations that are not direct parties to a case to share their perspective on what is at stake. In this filing, the coalition has emphasized that licensing regulates professional conduct, not speech, and warns that weakening this framework would endanger the public health, safety, and welfare.

Similar Challenges Emerging in California
The implications of Chiles are echoed in Crownholm v. Moore, a California state-level case challenging the state’s authority to enforce surveyor licensing. Like Chiles, Crownholm v. Moore advances the argument that professional practice involving plans or technical documents should be considered protected speech. While California courts have so far upheld the state’s ability to regulate licensure, a broad Supreme Court ruling in Chiles could give new traction to such claims. Taken together, these cases show that the risks to licensure extend beyond a single statute or profession, highlighting a broader legal effort that could redefine how states oversee technical practice.

From Colorado to the Courtroom
The Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument in Chiles v. Salazar for October 7, 2025. While a decision is not expected until later in the court’s term, that ruling will carry significant implications for professional licensure nationwide. The oral argument itself will not determine the outcome, but it is important because it provides the first opportunity to hear how the justices engage with the case. Their questions and lines of inquiry often give valuable insight into which legal theories they may accept or reject, and the argument helps set the momentum for how the case is likely to be decided. NSPE will continue to monitor the proceedings closely and keep members informed as developments occur.

Audio of the October 7 oral argument will be streamed live on the Supreme Court’s website.