In a challenge to a Florida law enacted last year that limited marketing by roofing contractors, CCL filed a brief in opposition to partial dismissal filed by the State. 

     The State first argued that the facial challenge to the law be dismissed, as no separate set of facts were pleaded to support that portion of the challenge, only the as-applied challenge. CCL argued in response that precedent holds that the same facts were sufficient to support both types of challenges, as the consequences are the same.

     The State also argued that the challenge was based on a misreading of the statute, because it does not necessarily prohibit the communications that the plaintiffs, Restoration Association of Florida and Apex Roofing, claim it does. CCL's brief points out that the State did not disclaim seeking punishment if the plaintiffs engaged in the practices they believed violated the statute. In addition, CCL cited Supreme Court decisions that still found standing and ripeness satisfied based on the plaintiffs' view of the statute's prohibitions, even when the State denied it would apply that way.

     The State's last major argument posited that the case was not ripe because there was no imminent threat of prosecution, but again CCL cited precedent that supported ripeness because plausible prosecution had caused the plaintiffs to engage in self-censorship, which sufficed to meet the applicable standard.