[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 19-13070 ____________________ HEATHER KOKESCH DEL CASTILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:17-cv-00722-MCR-HTC ____________________ USCA11 Case: 19-13070 Date Filed: 02/18/2022 Page: 2 of 26

2 Opinion of the Court 19-13070 Before BRANCH, LUCK, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges. LUCK, Circuit Judge: Heather Kokesch Del Castillo, an unlicensed dietician and nutritionist, claims that Florida’s Dietetics and Nutrition Practice Act, which requires a license to practice as a dietician or nutrition- ist, violates her First Amendment free speech rights to communi- cate her opinions and advice on diet and nutrition to her clients. The district court granted summary judgment for the Florida De- partment of Health, which enforces the Act, on Del Castillo’s First Amendment free speech claim because, the district court con- cluded, it was bound by our decision in Locke v. Shore, 634 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2011). Locke held that a similar state licensing scheme for commercial interior designers did not violate the free speech rights of unlicensed interior designers. Del Castillo argues that the district court erred, and we are not bound by Locke, because Locke was abrogated by the Supreme Court’s decision in National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018). So the narrow question for us is whether Locke is still good law after NIFLA. After reviewing what we said in Locke, what the Supreme Court said in NIFLA, and our prior panel precedent rule, we hold that it is. And because Locke is still good law, we conclude that we are bound to affirm the dis- trict court’s summary judgment for the department. USCA11 Case: 19-13070 Date Filed: 02/18/2022 Page: 3 of 26

19-13070 Opinion of the Court 3

FACTUAL BACKGROUND Del Castillo owned and operated a health-coaching business called Constitution Nutrition. She started her business in Califor- nia, which did not require her to have a license to operate it. After moving to Florida in 2015, Del Castillo continued to run her busi- ness—meeting online with most of her clients and meeting in per- son with two clients who lived in Florida. She described herself as a “holistic health coach” and not as a dietician. Del Castillo tailored her health coaching to each client, which included dietary advice. She advertised her business in a local health magazine, on Face- book, and on flyers at a local gym. Del Castillo’s business focused on “[o]ne-on-one health coaching,” which she described as “meeting with clients and dis- cussing overall health and wellness, as well as goal setting.” She gave them tailored advice on dietary choices, exercise habits, and general lifestyle strategies. For example, Del Castillo recom- mended vitamin supplements to some clients with low energy and told them to consult with their physicians before taking the supple- ments. For another client with food intolerances, Del Castillo rec- ommended health goals that fit within a list of foods to avoid pro- vided by the client’s doctor. Before her initial consultation with a new client, Del Castillo would ask them to fill out a “health history form.” The health his- tory form sought general background information about the client, like his or her age and o