Chiles v. Salazar · ¶37

As Holder indicates, too, the First Amendment's protections extend to licensed professionals much as they do to everyone else. It's a point we have since discussed at length in NIFLA. There, California sought to require crisis pregnancy clinics to make certain statements to their clients. The State argued that its law did not trigger demanding First Amendment review because it sought to regulate only “ `professional speech' ” by state license holders. 585 U. S., at 766–767. We rejected that move. By compelling clinics to speak the State's message, the law regulated speech based on its content. Id., at 766. And, we held, California had failed to “identif[y] a persuasive reason for treating professional speech as a unique category . . . exempt from ordinary First Amendment principles.” Id., at 773.

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