Whether a burden on speech imposed by an occupational licensing law must satisfy intermediate scrutiny if it is deemed incidental

In Nat’l Inst. of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra , 585 U.S. 755, 768 (2018) ( NIFLA ), this Court rejected the professional speech doctrine, which gave government “unfettered power to reduce a group’s First Amendment rights by simply imposing a licensing requirement.” Yet in the seven years since, “the division between speech and conduct has not been evenly applied throughout the country, particularly when it comes to licensing schemes that determine which individuals can speak about certain topics.” Richwine v. Matuszak , 148 F.4th 942, 953 (7th Cir. 2025) (citing conflicting decisions from federal courts of appeals). The decision below deepened that acknowledged circuit split. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a burden on speech must be incidental merely because it is imposed by an occupational licensing law. 2. Whether a law that imposes incidental burdens on speech must satisfy intermediate scrutiny. ii PARTIES Petitioners below) are Will McLemore; McLemore Auction Company, LLC; Ron Brajkovich; Justin Smith; and Blake Kimball. Respondents below) are Roxanna Gumucio, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the Tennessee Auctioneer Commission; John Lillard, in his official capacity as Assistant Director of the Tennessee Auctioneer Commission; Jeff Morris, in his official capacity as Chair of the Tennessee Auctioneer Commission; Ed Knight, in his official capacity as Vice Chair of the Tennessee Auctioneer Commission; and Larry Sims, Dwayne Rogers, and Jay White in their official capacities as members of the Tennessee Auctioneer Commission.