Maryland Shall Issue, Inc., et al. v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland

At issue in this case is a local ordinance, Bill 108-21 (“the Ordinance”) enacted by Anne Arundel County, Maryland (“the County”). That Ordinance compelled sellers of firearms and/or ammunition in the County to display in their retail establishments and distribute, with each such sale of a firearm or ammunition, literature created or adopted by the County concerning, inter alia, “suicide prevention” and “conflict resolution.” There is no dispute in this case that the County’s forced display and distribution requirement is content-based, compelled speech and is thus “presumptively unconstitutional.” Nat’l Inst. of Fam. & Life Advocs. v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755, 766

1. (“NIFLA”). Yet, the court of appeals held that the compelled speech mandated by the County’s Ordinance was nonetheless constitutional under Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Couns. of Supreme Ct. of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, 628 (1985), because, in the court’s view, the literature is merely “purely factual and uncontroversial” “commercial speech” and thus could be compelled under Zauderer. The court of appeals likewise affirmed the district court’s exclusion of Petitioners’ expert testimony that demonstrated that the compelled speech was not “purely factual and uncontroversial” information, holding that this exclusion was within the district court’s discretion. The issues presented are:

2. Whether the court of appeals impermissibly allowed the County to violate Petitioners’ First Amendment right “to remain silent,” as reaffirmed in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023), by holding that the County’s Ordinance compelling retail establishments to display and distribute the County’s literature