Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf
Page Number: 56.0

24 

303 CREATIVE LLC v. ELENIS 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

prohibition on posting a notice that they will deny goods or 
services based on sexual orientation. 

1 
This Court has long held that “the First Amendment does
not  prevent  restrictions  directed  at  commerce  or  conduct 
from  imposing  incidental  burdens  on  speech.”    Sorrell  v. 
IMS Health Inc., 564 U. S. 552, 567 (2011).  “Congress, for
example, can prohibit employers from discriminating in hir-
ing on the basis of race.  The fact that this will require an
employer  to  take  down  a  sign  reading  ‘White  Applicants 
Only’ hardly means that the law should be analyzed as one 
regulating  the  employer’s  speech  rather  than  conduct.” 
Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, 
Inc., 547 U. S. 47, 62 (2006) (FAIR).  This principle explains
“why an ordinance against outdoor fires might forbid burn-
ing a flag and why antitrust laws can prohibit agreements
in restraint of trade.”  Sorrell, 564 U. S., at 567 (citation and 
internal quotation marks omitted).

Consider United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367 (1968). 
In  that  case,  the  Court  upheld  the  application  of  a  law 
against  the  destruction  of  draft  cards  to  a  defendant  who
had burned his draft card to protest the Vietnam War.  The 
protester’s conduct was indisputably expressive.  Indeed, it 
was political expression, which lies at the heart of the First 
Amendment.  Whitney  v.  California,  274  U. S.  357,  375 
(1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring).  Yet the O’Brien Court fo-
cused on whether the Government’s interest in regulating
the conduct was to burden expression.  Because it was not, 
the regulation was subject to lesser constitutional scrutiny.
391  U. S.,  at  376–377,  381–382;  Clark  v.  Community  for 
Creative Non-Violence, 468 U. S. 288, 294, 299 (1984).  The 
O’Brien standard is satisfied if a regulation is unrelated to
the suppression of expression and “ ‘promotes a substantial 
government interest that would be achieved less effectively