A national survey of cigarette prices at military retail outlets.

forcement of the law while litigation is pending. To be granted a preliminary injunction, the requesting party must show their case is likely to succeed on the merits. Cooke’s order provides a preview into the approach the court will take in analyzing the merits of the case and suggests the law is unlikely to withstand legal challenge. After establishing that the law concerns the First Amendment rights of patients and physicians, Cooke explained that because the law’s restrictions are content-based, the court must use “strict scrutiny” to determine whether it is constitutional. For the law to be upheld, the state must show it “constitute[s] the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling state interest.” Cooke suggested that the law is likely to fail on both counts; it neither addresses a compelling state interest, nor is the least restrictive means of addressing such an interest, were one present. Cooke looked doubtfully at Florida’s arguments that compelling government interests exist in protecting patients from questions about firearm ownership; ensuring privacy regarding firearm ownership from clinicians; or protecting patients from harassment or discrimination due to firearm ownership. Even assuming that the state could show a compelling interest, Cooke suggested the state is likely to fail to prove that the law represents the “least restrictive means to accomplish that end.” Cooke pointed to a proposed (less restrictive) alternative whereby patients could decline answering questions about firearm ownership, and clinicians would be forbidden from recording such refusals. Cooke stressed the importance of “the free flow of truthful, non-misleading information within the doctor-patient relationship.” We hope the final decision recognizes the value of open communication within that relationship and makes the injunction permanent. Two weeks after the preliminary injunction was granted, a 2-year-old was accidentally and fatally shot while playing with his 11-year-old brother in their parents’ bedroom. Could his death have been prevented if his physician discussed the risks of firearm ownership and proper storage practices with his parents? Perhaps his physician did. Or perhaps his physician chose, because of the law, to avoid the topic of firearm ownership. Patients who look to the medical profession to safeguard their families cannot afford the passage of laws that restrict freedom to communicate openly, even if those laws are later struck down.