Three Cheers for Chiles

by · Mar 31, 2026 12:41 pm

Editor’s Note: Just a reminder, opinions expressed by our outside bloggers are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. CJLF has not taken a position on Chiles v. Salazar or the associated controversies.

Today, the Supreme Court effectively ended the conversion therapy bans for psychotherapists.  I say effectively because the Court held that the Tenth Circuit erred by not applying strict scrutiny in its consideration of Ms. Chiles’ First Amendment challenge to Colorado’s law.  But it seems pretty clear from the Court’s opinion that Colorado’s law would not survive that analysis.

As the Court goes to great lengths to explain, there is no recognized constitutional category of professional speech.  Just because someone holds a professional license issued by the state, which states increasingly require for various occupations, does not mean they waive their First Amendment rights.  Thank goodness – holding a professional license should not cost so dearly.

But there was more at work in these various conversion therapy bans worth mentioning.  As outlined in Chiles, the statute prohibited therapists from discussing with their gay clients their desires about becoming straight.  Or to put it more accurately, the statute prevented a gay client from asking their therapists to help them explore becoming straight if that is what they desired.  Thus, the law barred clients from setting their own goals in therapy.  And it only proscribed discussions about becoming straight.  Talk away if you had wished to explore becoming gay.  That is not just the state forbidding what you can talk about; it’s endorsing speech.  And it’s doing so by those compensated in large measure by the government.

As Professor Volokh highlights, Justice Jackson envisions a category of professional speech within the ambit of the First Amendment when it is “(1) in the context of the professional-patient relationship; (2) on matters within the provider’s professional expertise as defined by the medical community; (3) for the purpose of providing medical care.”  That gives the medical community enormous power.  Indeed, it delegates the states’ police power to private enterprises, many of which now see advocacy as a central component of their scientific mission.

What a chilling effect it would be if it became so.

Double Murderer Released Early, Convicted of New Murder

by · Mar 23, 2026 11:45 am

The Los Angeles District Attorney has this press release on the case of previously convicted double murderer who has now been convicted of a third murder. If the laws in effect at the time of the first judgment had been enforced, the third murder victim would likely be alive.

On Sept. 17, 1995, 28-year-old Derrick Reese was using a payphone when Collins carjacked him. After taking the vehicle, Collins backed up and shot Reese at least twice, killing him.

On Sept. 28, 1995, Collins entered a diner in Inglewood where 44-year-old Thomas Weiss was working as a cashier. Collins held Weiss at gunpoint and demanded money. When Weiss did not comply, Collins shot him in the face, killing him.

Both victims were random strangers, murdered 11 days apart. On January 15, 1998, Collins was sentenced to 50 years to life imprisonment.

Both the multiple murder and robbery-murder special circumstances are obviously true, so Collins could have gotten death or life without parole for these killings, but 50-to-life would have seemed sufficient at the time to ensure that Collins would not get out until he was quite elderly, if at all. Yet Collins was released in 2020. Why? Continue reading . . .

Serial Child Rapist Released from Prison, Back in Jail

by · Feb 27, 2026 9:37 am

Notorious California sexual predator David Funston (see this post) was released on parole yesterday under the state’s misguided “elderly” parole law and promptly taken into custody on new charges for an old crime. He is now in Placer County Jail. See this story by Darrell Smith in the Sacramento Bee and this story by Stepheny Price at Fox News.

Funston committed his crimes in an area northeast of Sacramento that includes parts of Sacramento and Placer Counties. After he received three consecutive life sentences in the Sacramento case, the Placer County District Attorney decided not to pursue the case in that county. The District Attorney Office’s statement is copied below.

This prompt action may prevent the unjust release of a predator in this case, but the case illustrates the urgent need for the California Legislature to repair its errors committed over the last decade. The prison overcrowding crisis and the Covid pandemic are long behind us, and measures adopted to deal with them should have had sunset dates. Basic justice requires long terms for the most egregious crimes. Some criminals, including Funston, should never walk free again.

Continue reading . . .

Attorney-Client Communication During an Overnight Break

by · Feb 25, 2026 7:30 am

When a defendant in a criminal case chooses to testify, and there is an overnight break in the middle of the testimony, can the trial judge forbid the lawyer to talk to the client about the testimony, even while allowing discussion of other topics?

Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court held today in Villareal v. Texas.

The decision drew the line between two bookend cases, Geders v. United States (1976) and Perry v. Leeke (1989). Continue reading . . .

Developments in the Law of Standing

by · Feb 24, 2026 9:55 am

Prof. Richard Re has this post at SCOTUSblog on the U.S. Supreme Court’s January 14 decision on standing in Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections. He notes several ways that the high court seems to be loosening the restrictions on standing in federal courts.

Standing is an issue that often comes up in crime victims’ rights litigation.

U.S. Supreme Court decisions based on Article III of the U.S. Constitution are not necessarily binding on state courts, where standing issues turn on the judiciary article of the state constitution and other state laws. Even so, the high court’s decisions are often persuasive precedent in state courts. Continue reading . . .

“Monster” Child Sexual Predator Granted Early Parole

by · Feb 22, 2026 6:58 pm

The Los Angeles Times has this story by Clara Harter:

A Sacramento man once described by a judge as “the monster parents fear the most” seemed destined to spend the rest of his life in prison after he was convicted of 16 counts of kidnapping and child molestation in 1999.

Instead, he is now set to go free after being granted elderly parole — much to the anger and horror of some of his victims, as well as the prosecutor who oversaw his case.

“He shouldn’t be breathing the same air that we’re breathing at all,” one victim, who was kidnapped and assaulted when she was just 4 years old, told The Times in an interview. “I disagree with him getting paroled out because he’s a horrible person. That man is a monster.” Continue reading . . .

The Vagaries of New Constitutional Rights

by · Feb 18, 2026 1:17 pm

From The Lancet Psychiatry comes this new policy paper:

Despite the existence of effective public mental health interventions, global coverage remains low. Only a minority of people with mental disorders receive treatment, far fewer receive interventions to address or prevent the associated impacts of mental disorders, and there is negligible coverage of interventions to prevent mental disorders or promote mental wellbeing and resilience. This implementation failure breaches the right to health and statutory legislation in some countries and results in population-scale preventable suffering, broad societal and individual impacts, and associated economic costs. Various reasons account for public mental health implementation failure, including insufficient policy and implementation according to population needs, and insufficient knowledge, resource, political will, and legal protection regarding the right to mental health. This Health Policy highlights a further reason for implementation failure is that only 12% of constitutions covering 3·5% of the world’s population explicitly recognise a constitutional right to mental health, compared with 70% of constitutions recognising a constitutional right to health or physical health. A legal framework that includes explicit constitutional protection for mental health would mean the right to mental health would supersede all other laws. This would thereby provide a basis for legislation and support legal opportunities to challenge, advocate, and improve effective public mental health implementation by different sectors. This framework and associated opportunities would support the scale-up of implementation of cross-sector policy based on the public mental health needs of a population. Such a holistic, coordinated legal approach would support scaled-up coverage of public mental health interventions to treat and prevent mental disorders and promote mental wellbeing and resilience, as well as action to address inequities and protect the rights of those with mental disorders. Improved implementation would result in broad impacts across different sectors and associated economic benefits.

Breathtaking to say the least.

California’s “Elderly” Parole Law

by · Feb 9, 2026 10:16 am

CJLF CEO Anne Marie Schubert has this op-ed in the Sacramento Bee on California’ “elderly” parole law.

The law absurdly defines “elderly” as over 50, and it permits parole after 20 years regardless of the minimum term specified in the sentence or in the law under which the inmate was sentenced.

California’s elderly parole law is the most lenient in the nation. While 24 other states have similar programs, most automatically exclude murderers and sex offenders. California does not. Continue reading . . .

Evading Accountability for Injustice

by · Jan 27, 2026 2:55 am

In most states, the power to grant a pardon or commute a sentence is vested in the governor, sometimes with a check on the power by another body. Parole boards can also shorten sentences, but in most states the members are appointed by the governor. Although far from perfect, these conventional arrangements do provide some semblance of accountability for unjust, undeserved reductions of punishment for major crimes. Even when not running for reelection, governors often have their eyes on another office and tend to be reluctant to anger voters with excessive sentence reductions.

Now in Virginia there is a bill to take the heat off the governor by greatly expanding the parole board and vesting appointment authority for the new seats in two legislators: the Speaker of the House of Delegates and the chairman of the Senate Rules Committee. These office holders directly face the voters of only their own districts, often “safe” ones, and they can be much less concerned with angering the voters of the state as a whole.

This post at Liberty Unyielding denounces the proposal. It is reproduced below with permission. Continue reading . . .