Chiles v. Salazar · ¶109

The takeaway from NIFLA is that Casey applied a lower level of scrutiny because the law in Casey restricted speech uttered in the course of—and as a part of—providing professional medical care. By contrast, the notice requirement in NIFLA was not “tied to a procedure at all” and was therefore meaningfully different: That law restricted “speech as speech.” 585 U. S., at 770. Thus, the key distinction, as the NIFLA Court saw it, was whether the challenged law was a regulation of speech as such or a regulation of “professional conduct that incidentally burden[ed] speech.” Id., at 769.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.