Wollschlaeger v. Governor - 848 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2017)

Rule:

A speech regulation targeted at specific subject matter is content based even if it does not discriminate among viewpoints within that subject matter. Innocent motives, moreover, do not eliminate the danger of censorship presented by a facially content-based statute, as future government officials may one day wield such statutes to suppress disfavored speech. When government regulates content, there is a large risk that the restriction really stems from something illegitimate: an effort to foreclose a controversial viewpoint, to stop people from being offended by certain topics and views, or to prevent people from being persuaded by what others have to say.

Facts:

The Florida Legislature enacted the Firearms Owners' Privacy Act (FOPA), which contained record-keeping, inquiry, anti-discrimination, and anti-harassment provisions. FOPA violations were punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 per offense, a letter of reprimand, probation, suspension, compulsory remedial education, or permanent license revocation. Shortly after FOPA was enacted, a number of doctors and medical organizations filed suit in federal court against various Florida officials, challenging some of the Act's provisions as unconstitutional. Ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court held that FOPA's record-keeping, inquiry, anti-discrimination, and anti-harassment provisions violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and permanently enjoined their enforcement. The state officials appealed, arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because two of Article III's justiciability requirements—standing and ripeness—were absent. 

Issue:

1. Did the plaintiffs establish Article III standing? 
2. Were the FOPA provisions unconstitutional? 

Answer:

1) Yes. 2) Yes, except the anti-discrimination provision.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the plaintiff doctors established U.S. Const. art. III standing and ripeness because they were threatened with injury traceable to FOPA such that there was a hardship if judicial review was withheld until an enforcement action. Anent the second issue, the Court held that although the FOPA's anti-discrimination provision did not violate the First Amendment, the record-keeping, inquiry, and anti-harassment provisions of FOPA violated the First Amendment because they constituted speaker-focused and content-based restrictions on speech, and the State failed to show that the provisions directly advanced a substantial government interest and were drawn to achieve those interests.