Whether the First Amendment protects the means of acquiring or creating speech when the speech is non-political

Petitioner Mike Yoder and his company, Drone Deer Recovery LLC, use drones to locate downed game and to generate and transmit factual location information to hunters , including Petitioner Jeremy Funke. Michigan criminalizes that speechproducing activity and the receipt of that information, even though the s tate permits drones to be used for other expressive purposes, such as photographing wildlife and landscapes. The Fourth and Ninth Circuits hold that the First Amendment protects the means of acqui ring and creating information necessary to produce speech , including nonpolitical speech . Garcia v. Cnty. of Alameda, 150 F.4th 1224, 1231 (9th Cir. 2025) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. N.C. Farm Bureau Fed’n, Inc., 60 F.4th 815, 828 (4th Cir. 2023) (PETA ). The Sixth Circuit adopted a contrary rule, holding that Yoder’s drone -based information -gathering is unprotected because it does not produce “political” speech. As Judge Bush explained in his separate statement, a political/non political distinction conflicts with those sister circuits and with this Court’s recognition that the First Amendment protects the creation of factual informat ion, including information “devoid of advocacy [or] political relevance.” Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552, 570 (2011) . The question presented is : Whether the First Amendment protects the means of acquiring or creating speech when the speech is non-political.