The State of Washington makes it unlawful to sell a lawful product "with which evidence of sexual assault is collected" if, and only if, the seller "markets or otherwise presents" it as usable "over-the-counter, at-home, or self-collected," or knows the person will use it for that purpose.

1. Does a law that bans the sale of otherwise lawful items based exclusively on the content of the seller's truthful marketing burden speech protected by the First Amendment?

2. Do content and viewpoint restrictions on speech avoid strict scrutiny review merely because the speech is commercial in nature?

Does a law that bans the sale of otherwise lawful items based exclusively on the content of the seller's truthful marketing burden speech protected by the First Amendment? Do content and viewpoint restrictions on speech avoid strict scrutiny review merely because the speech is commercial in nature?