Chiles v. Salazar · ¶55
Perhaps sensing that this Court's existing precedents offer it little support, Colorado ultimately pivots, urging us to reshape our doctrine. In doing so, the State begins by pointing again to NIFLA. There, recall, the Court observed that our cases have identified “two circumstances” in which speech by professionals may warrant “diminished” First Amendment protection: when a law seeks to compel disclosure of factual, noncontroversial information in commercial speech; and when a law regulates speech only incidentally to conduct. Id., at 767–768 (internal quotation marks omitted). Still, Colorado emphasizes, NIFLA left open the possibility that a future party might present “persuasive evidence . . . of a long (if heretofore unrecognized) tradition” of content regulation regarding additional categories of professional (or other) speech that might likewise warrant only “diminished” First…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.