Why did SCOTUS deny cert in Tingley?

What happened in the Chiles and Tingley litigation

Two separate but closely connected stories in the pool point to a procedural puzzle: the Supreme Court granted review in one Colorado conversion-therapy case (Chiles v. Salazar) but declined to review another, earlier case (Tingley v. Ferguson), even though the underlying claims were described as “identical.”

The conversion-therapy issue itself centers on whether Colorado may regulate therapeutic speech aimed at minors. Later coverage in the pool indicates the Court ultimately decided against Colorado’s policy, issuing an 8–1 decision that struck down the state ban on conversion therapy for minors on First Amendment grounds. Multiple entries tie the ruling to the reasoning that the Colorado law functioned as viewpoint-based regulation of speech.

Why it matters

The question matters because the Supreme Court’s certiorari choices often shape the speed and uniformity of national legal rules. When the Court takes one case but refuses to hear what are described as comparable cases, lower courts may keep receiving mixed guidance for a period of time, and litigants’ strategies can diverge.

What’s clear from the provided items

• The Supreme Court took up Chiles v. Salazar and issued a decision described as lopsided (8–1).
• A separate case, Tingley v. Ferguson, was described as comparable or identical in substance, but review was denied earlier.
• The Court’s ultimate disposition in Chiles involved First Amendment concerns about regulating speech rather than conduct.

What’s still not specified

The pool does not provide the specific legal or factual rationale for why cert was denied in the Tingley matter. Without those details, it isn’t possible to state the Court’s reasoning for the certiorari denial beyond the general observation that procedural factors can drive such outcomes.