Opinion ID: 2265911
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the tax passes intermediate scrutiny under o'brien

Text: ¶ 24 As a content-neutral regulation of conduct that imposes incidental burdens on some protected expression, the Tax is constitutional so long as it passes intermediate scrutiny under the O'Brien test. Under O'Brien, a regulation of conduct is constitutional and must be upheld so long as: (1) it is within the power of the legislature to enact; (2) it furthers a substantial government interest; (3) the government interest is unrelated to the suppression of protected expression; and (4) any incidental restrictions it imposes on protected expression are not greater than is essential to further the interest. [44] ¶ 25 As a threshold matter, it is important to differentiate between the O'Brien test for a regulation of conduct that imposes incidental burdens on some protected expression and the test for a regulation of speech that targets secondary effects. [45] Although both tests can be employed in situations that are factually similar, [46] they are two distinct tests directed at two different inquiries. The O'Brien incidental burdens test applies to regulations of conduct that are content neutral both on their face and as to purpose. The Renton secondary effects analysis applies to regulations of speech that are content based on their face but are asserted to be content neutral as to purpose. And, in a case like this one, where the parties' arguments implicate both O'Brien and the secondary effects analyses, understanding the distinctions between the tests is key to reaching the correct result. ¶ 26 As set forth by the Supreme Court, the intermediate scrutiny test from O'Brien applies when the regulation at issue regulates conduct, but the course of conduct to which the regulation applies contains both `speech' and `nonspeech' elements. [47] In other words, the O'Brien test applies to statutes that regulate conduct but that include within their reach both expressive and nonexpressive conduct. The O'Brien inquiry is directed toward determining whether a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating [conduct] can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms. [48] ¶ 27 The secondary effects analysis, on the other hand, is appropriate when the regulation at issue is content based, i.e. is directed at speech rather than conduct, but is justified with reference to the secondary effects associated with the speech rather than the communicative content of the speech itself. [49] ¶ 28 The difference in objectives between the incidental burdens and secondary effects analyses is readily apparent. Whereas the O'Brien incidental burdens test is designed simply to ensure that a neutral, nontargeted regulation of conduct does not place impermissibly heavy burdens on protected expression, the inquiry in secondary effects cases is directed, at least in part, toward assessing the motive behind a facially content-based regulation of speech. When a law, on its face, regulates protected expression differently based on its content, there is a presumption that the law's purpose is to target certain speech based on its content or communicative impact. [50] In such a case, the reviewing court employs the secondary effects analysis to ensure that the expressed interest in regulating secondary effects is the real motivation behind the challenged statute. [51] In contrast, there is no need, when applying the incidental burdens analysis, to evaluate the expressed interest because the determination that the regulation does not target the content of protected expression has already been madeby virtue of declaring the regulation content neutral. ¶ 29 Having set out the distinct purposes of the O'Brien incidental burdens analysis and the secondary effects analysis, and having determined that O'Brien provides the correct framework of analysis, we now analyze whether the Tax passes intermediate scrutiny under O'Brien.