Will McLemore, et al. v. Roxanna Gumucio, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Tennessee Auctioneer Commission, et al.

In Nat’l Inst. of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755, 768 (2018) (NIFLA), this Court rejected the professional speech doctrine, which gave government “unfettered power to reduce a group’s First Amendment rights by simply imposing a licensing requirement.” Yet in the seven years since, “the division between speech and conduct has not been evenly applied throughout the country, particularly when it comes to licensing schemes that determine which individuals can speak about certain topics.” Richwine v. Matuszak, 148 F.4th 942, 953 (7th Cir.

1. (citing conflicting decisions from federal courts of appeals). The decision below deepened that acknowledged circuit split. The questions presented are:

2. Whether a burden on speech must be incidental merely because it is imposed by an occupational licensing law.

3. Whether a law that imposes incidental burdens on speech must satisfy intermediate scrutiny.