Did the Ninth Circuit err by holding that Oregon's prohibition of unannounced recordings is content neutral and inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent?

Oregon’s audio recording law—a national outlier— requires “specifically inform[ing]” anyone in almost any conversation that their words are being recorded. This peculiar requirement severely hampers modern investigative journalism, undermining the First Amendment’s protection of free speech and newsgathering by effectively prohibiting the use of today’s most powerful reporting tools—discreet audio recordings. Moreover, the law’s inconsistent application permits and thereby favors during certain felonies, raising profound concerns. States District Court for the District of Oregon granted A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found the law to be a content based and unconstitutional res tri cti o n o f s peec h . An e n b an c p an e l v aca te d an d ultimately reversed, contravening its own precedent, and upheld the law. This case presents a critical opportunity for this Court to clarify First Amendment doctrine, ensuring it aligns with the realities of modern journalism and the use of technology for effective speech and accountability. The questions presented are:Did the Ninth Circuit err by holding that Oregon’s prohibition of unannounced recordings—which expressly ex e m p ts rec o rdin gs o f po li ce acti vi ty an d dis cuss i o ns during certain felonies—is content neutral and thus ii Court’s decisions in Reed v. Town of Gilbert and City of A us t i n v . R e ag an N at ional A d v ert isi ng and with the Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits? Even if Oregon’ s law is content neutral, does it fail intermediate scrutiny because it restricts unannounced audio recording in wholly public settings where privacy interests are minimal or non-existent?