UST Historian Brings Insight to U.S. Supreme Court Case

Anthony M. Joseph, Ph.D., professor of history and director of the Master in Liberal Arts Program at the University of St. Thomas, spent part of summer 2025 contributing historical scholarship to one of the highest legal forums in the country - the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dr. Joseph authored an amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Chiles v. Salazar, a challenge to a Colorado statute that limits the speech of licensed counselors concerning matters of sexuality and gender identity.

"My brief looked at the history of medical licensing in the United States," Dr. Joseph said. "The history of medical licensing is important to the case because it has influenced counselor licensing laws, which are much more recent."

That history, he explained, reveals a longstanding respect for professional autonomy.

"This history indicates that our law has traditionally respected the therapeutic freedom of practitioners," Dr. Joseph said.

The opportunity came through an unexpected professional connection. Dr. Joseph said he first learned about the case from Dr. David Deavel, a fellow UST professor and chairman of the UST Theology Department, who told him that the attorneys involved were seeking a historian to address "the history of government regulation of physicians and counselors."

Dr. Joseph has researched the history of medicine extensively, including "the history of how physicians have understood the unborn child" and "the history of law regarding medical things … and how the law intersects with their practice."

Under Supreme Court rules, amicusbriefs must be submitted by a lawyer admitted to the Supreme Court bar. The brief was filed on behalf of the petitioner, Kaylee Chiles, and submitted by attorneys led by Allan E. Parker Jr., a member of the Supreme Court bar.

For Dr. Joseph, the experience was professionally meaningful.

"Often historians write about the past as though it were some distant world quite unconnected to our own," he said. "It was very gratifying to be able to show through my brief how relevant the past can be to the choices and decisions that confront us today."

Dr. Joseph said he was grateful to show that history has a place in modern-day decision making.

"Historians are kind of haunted by this, the thought of what is the relevance of our historical knowledge," he said. "This was very satisfying to me to contribute to an issue that is very current and being litigated in the Supreme Court."

Dr. Joseph noted that the U.S. Constitution itself is a historical document.

"History doesn't necessarily tell us what to do, but it does illuminate sort of how human beings have addressed something in the past," he said.

He described history as an essential form of wisdom.

"The traditional idea of representing the virtue of wisdom was to show a two-faced person," he said. "One face looking forward into the future … the other face is looking back into the past."

Dr. Joseph joined the University of St. Thomas in fall 2022 and has taught the history of medicine course multiple times since arriving. He shared his Supreme Court experience with students in that class, highlighting the difference between how historians and lawyers approach arguments.

For students, Dr. Joseph said the experience demonstrates how academic training can serve the public good.

"It's been instructive as an example of how you can bring your professional training to bear on an important question," he said. "There is always this possibility of their contributing to a question of public interest and public concern. Sometimes the opportunities find you."