For almost 50 years, Dr. Ronald Hines has been a licensed veterinarian in Texas. After a spinal cord injury prevented him from continuing to provide in‐person services, Dr. Hines started a website to provide advice on pet care. He never tried to be an animal’s primary veterinarian—he noted a disclaimer to that effect—and did not prescribe medication. After a decade of such practice without any complaints or problems, the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners charged Dr. Hines with violating state law by failing to be physically present at the location of the pets before providing veterinary services. The U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld this restriction on Dr. Hines’s speech because, according to the court, any speech by a professional within the scope of his profession directed toward an individual’s circumstances isn’t protected by the First Amendment. Dr. Hines has asked the Supreme Court to review the case and Cato has filed a brief supporting that petition. The Fifth Circuit erroneously construed the Texas regulations as governing nonspeech conduct that only incidentally impacted speech. But everything that Dr. Hines did was speech!—there was no nonspeech conduct to regulate. Even if the regulations were content‐neutral restrictions that incidentally restricted speech, the restrictions should have been reviewed under heightened scrutiny—meaning that the government would need to show a strong justification for its enforcement action. But the restrictions at issue here are explicitly content‐based: Dr. Hines could’ve talked about any topic he wanted, except the topic of veterinary care. Under the lower court’s logic, the following people would be unknowingly violating Texas law: Dr. Sanjay Gupta provides health information online; Loveline Radio provides relationship and drug‐addition advice; The Mutual Fund Show provides financial advice; in addition to radio talk shows on pet care. All these people, and many others, would be expected to know and follow the detailed regulations of every single state. The physical examination requirement doesn’t even make sense as a matter of basic veterinary practice. It only requires that vets visit a location, not that they actually examine a particular animal. It prevents a vet’s colleague from relying on notes and records when the primary‐care vet is unavailable. Dr. Hines couldn’t even tell a client that her pet’s condition sounded serious and so the owner should, say, not let the animal drink water and bring it to him right away. Moreover, someone who wasn’t a licensed veterinarian could have provided the same advice as Dr. Hines without a problem; the law prohibits good information from qualified individuals while allowing unqualified individuals to give bad advice. The regulation just ends up hurting the poor, who can’t afford to travel to Dr. Hines, and practically creates geographic limitations on speech. The Supreme Court should grant review to protect basic First Amendment rights in the context of occupational regulation.