On June 14, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, declined to strike down a California law that severely restricts the right of alcoholic-beverage manufacturers and retailers to advertise their products. By a 10 to 1 vote, the court held that the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in IMS Health v. Sorrell did not alter the First Amendment analysis the court performed 30 years ago to uphold the very same law. The law provides that while retailers may advertise such products, manufacturers may not pay retailers for doing so; the practical effect is to eliminate most such advertising. In its amicus brief, WLF had argued that such content-based restrictions are subject to strict First Amendment scrutiny, a scrutiny that the California law cannot possibly survive, and that numerous other means exist by which California can promote its temperance aims without abridging speech rights.