Whether the government may categorically ban expressive conduct, such as expressive honking of car horns, in the name of traffic safety without presenting any evidence that its ban furthers that interest

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Using a car’s horn to express support for a protest is a widespread form of First Amendment protected activity that has a history virtually as long as that of the automobile. When a content-neutral law burdens expressive conduct, the government must prove that its law furthers an important governmental interest. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 664-65 (1994) (Turner 1). Additionally, because this Court is “suspect” of “[b]road prophylactic rules” banning speech, NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 438 (1968), the government must “show[] that it seriously undertook to address” its interests “with less intrusive tools readily available to it.” McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464, 494 (2014). Applying these principles, several courts of appeals and one state court of last resort have struck down blanket bans on expressive conduct or speech on or near public roadways unsupported by any facts showing any hazard to traffic safety. Departing from that line of authority, the Ninth Circuit below held that California’s categorical ban on all non-warning honking did not violate the First Amendment. This is despite the Government presenting zero evidence that expressive honking has ever presented a risk to traffic safety, and the Government not trying—or at least seriously considering—less intrusive measures to address its traffic safety concerns. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the government may categorically ban expressive conduct, such as expressive honking of car i horns, in the name of traffic safety without presenting any evidence that its ban furthers that interest. 2. Whether the government may categorically ban expressive conduct, such as expressive honking of car horns, where the government had not tried—or at least seriously considered—using less restrictive measures to address its traffic safety concerns. ii