1. Should this Court grant this petition to resolve the
widening conflict between the Ninth Circuit, which
started in Tingley v. Ferguson , 47 F.4th 1055 (9th
Cir. 2022), reh den ., 57 F.4th 1072 (9th Cir. 2023) (with
vigorous dissents), cert den . 144 S. Ct. 33 (2023) (dis.
opns. of. Thomas, J. & Alito, J.) and the Eleventh
Circuit in Otto v. City of Boca Ratan, 981 F.3d 854
(11th Cir. 2020), reh. den ., 41 F.4th 1271 (11th Cir.
2022) (with vigorous dissents). The conflict originally
was whether physicians' speech which is the treatment
is fully First Amendment protected per Otto, or
categorically excluded from protection per Tingley .
The conflict has been expanded by the Ninth Circuit
in this case which stated that no speech by physicians
to patients is protected because it is all incidental to
medical care.

2. Is the lower courts' rule of law that all physician
communications with patients are unprotected by the
First Amendment consistent with or foreclosed by
Nat'l Inst. of Fam. & Life Advocs. v. Becerra , 585 U.S.
755 (2018) (" NIFLA ") and standard First Amendment
content and viewpoint analysis. If foreclosed, does that
make Respondents' interpretation of Business and
Professions Code Section 2234(c) unconstitutionally
overbroad?

3. If the speech in this case is fully protected, have the
Respondents satisfied their strict scrutiny burden?

4. Have Petitioner physicians established their standing
to challenge the Respondents' enforcement policy
sanctioning so-called "Covid misinformation" and/
or have the Petitioner organizations established
standing to assert the right of patients to hear the
information targeted by the Respondents under
Murthy v. Missouri , 603 U.S. 43 (2024)?

Whether the Ninth Circuit's rule that all physician communications with patients are unprotected by the First Amendment is consistent with NIFLA and standard First Amendment analysis