Whether California's ban on gun show sales at public fairgrounds violates First and Second Amendment protections for commercial speech and lawful commerce in firearms

QUESTIONS PRESENTED California enacted a trio of laws banning “sales” of firearms and ammunition on any state-owned property. The purpose and effect of these laws is to ban gun shows—and the speech that takes place at those events— at the fairgrounds operated by California’s District Agricultural Associations and at other public forums. More than twenty-five years ago, a local government in California sought to ban “offers for sale” of firearms at gun shows held at county-owned fairgrounds. The Ninth Circuit held that the policy violated the First Amendment under the commercial speech doctrine. Nordyke v. Santa Clara Cnty., 110 F.3d 707 (9th Cir. 1997). Fast-forward to today, the state of California, out of legislative animus, has resuscitated censorship of gun shows. While an “offer for sale” is still protected commercial speech under Ninth Circuit precedent, that same court has now found that an “acceptance” is not protected speech. Under New York State Pistol & Rifle Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), the government must prove that a ban on Second Amendment commerce is part of an enduring historical tradition. Rejecting Petitioners’ Second Amendment claims, the Ninth Circuit abandoned the straightforward test set forth in Bruen and instead applied an interest-balancing “meaningful constraint” test. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the distinction between pure speech and commercial is obsolete, with the First Amendment protecting all lawful speech in the same manner and, if not, whether the current iteration of the “commercial speech doctrine” tolerates a categorical ban on any speech or expressive conduct constituting (i) ll an acceptance in contract formation for lawful sales of lawful products. 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit’s decision directly conflicts with this Court’s decision in Bruen by applying a “meaningful constraint” test to a Second Amendment claim asserting a right to engage in lawful commerce in firearms and ammunition on public property. 3. Whether an allegation that a law is motivated by animus can support a claim under the Equal Protection Clause when the law results in the denial of access to public forums for disfavored groups advocating disfavored rights?