First Amendment challenge to Ohio statute restricting medical practitioner-patient communications

QUESTION PRESENTED This appeal arises out of a First Amendment challenge to a recently enacted Ohio statute that imposes strict limitations upon communications between medical practitioners and _ prospective patients who have been injured in automobile accidents or crimes. Granting a writ of certiorari will allow this Court to resolve the conflict that has developed amongst the Federal Courts of Appeal over the following question: When governmental regulations upon commercial speech are based upon either the identity of the speaker or the content of the message, does the “heightened scrutiny” standard addressed in Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011) control instead of the intermediate four-part test adopted in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm. of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980)? In a reported decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit adopted the minority view that Sorrell changed nothing with regard to restrictions upon commercial speech, and the more forgiving Central Hudson standard governs in all such instances. First Choice Chiropractic, LLC v. DeWine, 969 F.3d 675, 682 n.3 (6th Cir. 2020); App. 13. Four other Circuits, on the other hand, employ “heighted scrutiny’ when commercial speech is burdened with speaker-based or content-based restraints. Wollschlaeger v. Governor, Fla., 848 F.3d i 1298, 1301 (11th Cir. 2017); In re Tam, 808 F.3d 1321, 1334-35 (Fed. Cir. 2015); United States v. Caronia, 703 F.3d 149, 163-65 (2d Cir. 2012); Pacific Coast Horseshoeing School, Inc. v. Kirchmeyer, 961 F.3d 1062, 1069-74 (9th Cir. 2020). ii