Arlington, Va.—Today, the Supreme Court denied review in two First Amendment cases brought by the Institute for Justice, a non-profit, public interest law firm. The cases involved similar occupational speech questions and were filed on behalf of a drone mapping service in North Carolina and a property mapping company in California. In each, the lower courts had upheld occupational-licensing laws restricting Americans’ ability to provide photographs, images, and information to willing customers.
These denials come on the heel of the recent decision by the Court in Chiles v. Salazar, an 8-1 decision that secured protections around occupational speech and that held the lower courts erred by failing to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny.
“This is a blow to the First Amendment rights of our clients and to all Americans. The Institute for Justice has been firm in saying all along: speech is speech and is protected under the First Amendment,” said IJ senior attorney Sam Gedge. “You shouldn’t need a governmental permission slip or a license to be able to give your advice or convey information.”
What is speech? It might seem like a basic question, but it’s long been a hotly debated topic, particularly when that speech is related to working. But your speech doesn’t lose First Amendment protection just because it’s related to your occupation.
Countless Americans—from tour guides to lawyers—earn their living in occupations that consist primarily of speech. But often, government officials harness occupational licensing laws to stifle this speech and infringe on the right to earn an honest living, often at the behest of politically connected industries.
The very idea that Americans would have to register with the government before providing information or communicating a message is antithetical to this country’s tradition of free speech and open inquiry. But for decades courts routinely applied the so-called “Professional Speech” doctrine to exempt occupational speech from the First Amendment.
The recent ruling in Chiles has reinvigorated that debate and has given credence to IJ’s work and the principle that speech is protected under the First Amendment even if it’s related to earning a living.
But today’s certiorari denials show there is still much work to be done in the fight for occupational speech to be protected under the First Amendment.
“Our clients have a First Amendment right to provide useful information and people have a right to hear that information,” said IJ senior attorney Paul Avelar. “While we are disappointed with today’s denials, this is only a temporary setback. We will continue to fight for the rights of all Americans to exercise their First Amendment rights.”
Also today, the Supreme Court denied review in another First Amendment case litigated by the Institute for Justice, in which the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the First Amendment right of retired veterinarian Ron Hines to e-mail advice to animal lovers worldwide. Given the Supreme Court’s denial of review, that victory will remain on the books.
https://www.archbridgeinstitute.org/state-occupational-licensing-index
# # #
To arrange interviews on this subject, journalists may contact Phillip Suderman, IJ’s Communications Project Manager, at [email protected] or (850) 376-4110. More information on the cases is available at: https://ij.org/case/texas-veterinary-speech-ii/