Jerry Beeman, Plaintiffs and Respondents v. Anthem Prescr — Corrigan, J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting…

Summary

Justice Corrigan's concurring and dissenting opinion agrees that Civil Code section 2527 implicates the state constitutional protection against compelled speech, but disagrees with the majority's use of rational-basis review. She would apply intermediate scrutiny because the statute compels commercial speech for the purpose of influencing private reimbursement negotiations, rather than preventing deception or serving a recognized consumer-protection function, and would conclude that the statute fails that standard. Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, concurring, would uphold the statute on the ground that it does not implicate the state constitutional free-speech clause at all, or alternatively would apply rational-basis review.