Case: Upsolve, Inc., et al. v. Letitia James, Attorney General of New York, No. 25-948
Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2026-02-10
Status: Denied
Question Presented: Is a law whose application is triggered by communicating about a particular topic nonetheless content-neutral so long as the law can be described as aimed at the "purpose, focus, and circumstance" of the speech rather than at its content?
On March 30, 2026, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Upsolve, Inc. v. James, leaving the Second Circuit's decision in place. The denial came after a single conference on March 27, despite five amicus briefs filed in support of the petition, including submissions from the Cato Institute, the Manhattan Institute, the Pacific Legal Foundation, and Professor Rebecca L. Sandefur and 31 scholars.
Petitioner's counsel Robert James McNamara pressed the case to the Court. Notably, respondent Attorney General James waived her right to respond, signaling confidence that the petition would not attract four votes.
The legal question was pointed: when a law's application turns entirely on the subject matter of speech, can it still qualify as content-neutral under the First Amendment? Upsolve argued the answer must be no. The breadth of amicus support, spanning libertarian think tanks and academic access-to-justice scholars, reflected genuine disagreement about how the content-neutrality framework applies to professional speech regulations.
The denial leaves that question unresolved. The Court's silence here is not a ruling on the merits, but it does leave the Second Circuit's framework in place for now.