Does a plausible allegation of viewpoint-discrimination-by-proxy state a valid First Amendment claim?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED California law formerly permitted nonprofit advocacy organizations of all viewpoints to receive a certain type of private donation—called a “prevailing wage contribution.” But a _ recent legislative amendment, known as S.B. 954, limits eligibility for those donations to organizations selected in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Petitioner, an advocacy organization that primarily subsisted off of prevailing wage contributions and that stood to lose its funding, sued on the theory that the purportedly “neutral” criterion of designation in a CBA acts as a proxy for union-favored viewpoints. It alleged that, in practice, no CBA will authorize funding to a group that speaks contrary to union interests, and pointed to S.B. 954’s overand under-inclusiveness as evidence of the law’s true, discriminatory purpose. The Ninth Circuit rejected this theory, held that the law was a facially neutral government speech subsidy, and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 without leave to amend. The questions presented are: 1. Does a plausible allegation that a facially “neutral” law acts as a proxy for viewpoint discrimination state a valid claim for relief under the First Amendment? 2. Does a law that determines which private parties may receive a certain type of private donation constitute a government subsidy of speech, or instead a restriction on private speech? ii LIST OF ALL PARTIES The Petitioner is Associated Builders and Cooperation Committee, which was a Plaintiff and Appellant below. Respondents are Interpipe Contracting, Inc., which was a Plaintiff and Appellant below, but appealed and now petitions separately; as well as Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California; Andre Schoorl, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Industrial Regulations; and Julie A. Su, in her official capacity as California Labor of Labor Standards Enforcement, all of whom were Defendants and Appellees below. Andre Schoorl has been substituted in automatically per Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).