Staff Reports
Oregon regulators have another legal headache on their hands. Alliance Defending Freedom recently filed an opening brief asking the Oregon Court of Appeals to overturn nearly $90,000 in fines and other discipline imposed on licensed counselor Frank Canepa for saying he would not personally bless a client’s same‑sex relationship. This is not just a local licensing spat — it’s a clear First Amendment fight over speech, conscience, and how far the state can reach into private counseling sessions.
The appeal: what’s new
The new legal move is simple and serious: ADF is asking the Court of Appeals to vacate the Board of Licensed Professional Counselors and Therapists’ final order and a bill of costs that together total about $89,636, plus a requirement that Canepa take continuing‑education hours. The board relied on an ethics rule known as Rule A.4.b from the American Counseling Association, which says counselors must avoid imposing their values and must respect client diversity. The administrative law judge found Canepa violated that rule after a difficult session in which he said he could not personally affirm the client’s relationship.
Legal arguments and Supreme Court backing
ADF’s brief presses hard on First Amendment protections. It argues counseling conversations are speech protected by the Constitution and that applying Rule A.4.b to punish Canepa is viewpoint discrimination. The brief also raises a Seventh Amendment jury‑trial argument and challenges the rule as vague and overbroad. Importantly, ADF leans on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Chiles v. Salazar, where the high court found that certain state bans on counseling speech were unconstitutional as applied. In short, the brief says the state can’t silence or force speech from counselors just because it dislikes their beliefs.
Oregon’s pattern of regulatory overreach
This case is hardly an isolated incident. Oregon has been in the headlines before for using licensing and anti‑discrimination rules to punish people whose views run counter to state orthodoxy. Remember the Sweet Cakes litigation and the long circus that followed. The message from some state agencies lately seems to be: conform or pay up. That approach treats conscience like a public nuisance instead of a First Amendment value worth protecting.
What to watch next and why it matters
The Court of Appeals will decide whether to set briefing schedules or hear oral argument. If the court sides with Canepa, it could rein in licensing boards that weaponize ethics codes against dissenting speech. If the court sides with the board, expect further appeals and a broader fight over whether professional conduct rules may be used to police viewpoint. Conservatives should pay attention because this case is about free speech and religious freedom in the everyday interactions between professionals and clients — and whether the state gets the last word on what counselors must say.
