Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1140_5368.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

20 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FAMILY AND 
LIFE ADVOCATES v. BECERRA
 
Opinion of the Court 

For  all  these  reasons,  the  unlicensed  notice  does  not 
satisfy  Zauderer,  assuming  that  standard  applies.    Cali-
fornia has offered no justification that the notice plausibly 
furthers.  It  targets  speakers,  not  speech,  and  imposes  an 
unduly burdensome disclosure requirement that will chill 
their  protected  speech.    Taking  all  these  circumstances
together, we conclude that the unlicensed notice is unjusti-
fied and unduly burdensome under Zauderer.  We express
no view on the legality of a similar disclosure requirement 
that is better supported or less burdensome. 

IV 
We  hold  that  petitioners  are  likely  to  succeed  on  the
merits of their claim that the FACT Act violates the First 
Amendment.  We  reverse  the  judgment  of  the  Court  of 
Appeals  and  remand  the  case  for  further  proceedings
consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered.