Candance Kagan v. City of New Orleans, 753 F.3d 560

City of New Orleans requires tour guides for hire to obtain a license.
Licensing scheme tests knowledge, requires felony-free period, drug test, and fees; violations carry imprisonment and fines.
Plaintiffs (four tour guides) challenge the license as First Amendment violation and seek declaratory judgment and injunction.
District court granted summary judgment for the City; issue on constitutional validity proceeds on appeal.
Court analyzes whether the license is content-neutral and subject to intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny, focusing on governmental interests and tailoring of the regulation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the license restricts speech under the First Amendment.	Plaintiffs argue license restricts speech by conditioning licenses on content.	City argues license is content-neutral and aimed at safeguarding visitors, not regulating speech.	License is content-neutral; governs conduct, not speech; passes intermediate scrutiny.
Whether the licensing scheme satisfies intermediate scrutiny.	Plaintiffs contend there is no adequate tailoring to achieve substantial interests.	License advances substantial interests in safety and reliability; no less restrictive alternative shown.	Regulation promotes substantial interests with narrow tailoring.
Whether the district court erred by applying scrutiny any differently than necessary.	N/A	N/A	Court adopts intermediate scrutiny framework consistent with Ward and related authorities.

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705 (2010) (law not aimed at protected speech; material-support context)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 109 S. Ct. 2745 (1989) (content-neutral regulation reviewed under intermediate scrutiny)
United States v. Albertini, 470 U.S. 636 (1985) (illustrates narrow tailoring and substantial interest)