According to the district court and the Ninth Circuit, all speech between a doctor and a patient is unprotected by the First Amendment because it is all medical conduct or incidental to medical care or treatment. Is that correct under Nat'l Inst. of Fam. & Life Advocs. v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755 (2018) ("NIFLA")?

If not, are the information, opinions, and recommendations made by physicians to patients about Covid to be analyzed by content and viewpoint analysis and authority which has held that this type of speech is fully First Amendment protected?

If strict scrutiny applies to Respondents' enforcement program of threatening to investigate and sanction California physicians for such speech, have the Applicants established the modified Winter factors for obtaining a preliminary injunction based on the preliminary injunction record?

Specifically, does the absence of any evidence in the preliminary injunction record that less restrictive means were considered and rejected require a finding that Respondents failed to meet their strict scrutiny burden of proof?

Were the lower courts incorrect in characterizing this lawsuit as making a facial challenge to the words of the California disciplinary statute or an "as applied" challenge, as opposed to a challenge to a multi-year, executive and legislative enforcement policy of threatening physicians with sanctions for providing information and recommendations contrary to the mainstream Covid narrative?

As a matter of law, based on the record, and de novo review, have Applicant physicians established their standing to challenge the Respondents' enforcement policy, and/or have the Applicant organizations established standing to assert the right of patients to hear the information targeted by the Respondents under Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U.S. 48 (2024)?

Given the nationwide scope of efforts to discipline physicians for protected speech, the media's cajoling the medical boards to sanction more physicians for their protected speech, and the impact of such efforts on the publics and patients' right to hear divergent viewpoints, should this Court intervene now and in the related case of Stockton v. Ferguson, 24A440, and enter an injunction, or a stay and convert this Application into a petition for certiorari and decide this case and Stockton at the same time or as consolidated cases?

Whether physicians' speech about medical treatments and Covid-19 recommendations is fully protected by the First Amendment or can be regulated as medical conduct under strict scrutiny