UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUNIOR SPORTS MAGAZINES No. 22-56090 INC.; RAYMOND BROWN; CALIFORNIA YOUTH SHOOTING D.C. No. SPORTS ASSOCIATION, INC.; 2:22-cv-04663- REDLANDS CALIFORNIA YOUTH CAS-JC CLAY SHOOTING SPORTS, INC.; CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED; OPINION THE CRPA FOUNDATION; GUN OWNERS OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. ROB BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California; DOES 1 - 10,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding 2 JUNIOR SPORTS MAGAZINES, INC. V. BONTA

Argued and Submitted June 28, 2023 Pasadena, California

Filed September 13, 2023

Before: N. Randy Smith, Kenneth K. Lee, and Lawrence VanDyke, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Lee; Concurrence by Judge VanDyke

SUMMARY*

First Amendment/Commercial Speech

The panel reversed the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin, pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, a California law that prohibits the advertising of any “firearm- related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.” California Business and Professions Code § 22949.80. The panel assumed that California’s law regulates only commercial speech and that intermediate scrutiny applies. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the panel first concluded that because California permits minors under supervision to possess and use firearms for hunting and other lawful

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. JUNIOR SPORTS MAGAZINES, INC. V. BONTA 3

activities, Section 22949.80 facially regulates speech that concerns lawful activity and is not misleading. Next, the panel held that section 22949.80 does not directly and materially advance California’s substantial interests in reducing gun violence and the unlawful use of firearms by minors. There was no evidence in the record that a minor in California has ever unlawfully bought a gun, let alone because of an ad. Finally, the panel held that section 22949.80 was more extensive than necessary because it swept in truthful ads about lawful use of firearms for adults and minors alike. Because plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on the merits and the remaining preliminary injunction factors weighed in plaintiffs’ favor, the panel reversed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings. Concurring, Judge VanDyke wrote separately to emphasize that laws like section 2249.80, which attempt to use the coercive power of the state to eliminate a viewpoint from public discourse, deserve strict scrutiny. This circuit’s precedent is ambiguous about whether viewpoint- discriminatory laws that regulate commercial speech are subject to strict scrutiny. In the appropriate case, this circuit should make clear they are. 4 JUNIOR SPORTS MAGAZINES, INC. V. BONTA

COUNSEL Anna M. Barvir (argued) and Carl D. Michel, Michel & Associates PC, Long Beach, California; Donald Kilmer, Law Offices of Donald Kilmer, Caldwell, Idaho; for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Gabrielle D. Boutin (argued), Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, California; Kevin J. Kelley, Deputy Attorney General, Mark R. Beckington, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Thomas S. Patterson, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Rob Bonta, Califo