45, 103 S.Ct. 948, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983). SB 6251 is a content based restriction on speech. A law is content-based if, to enforce it, “an official must necessarily examine the content of the message that is conveyed.” Am. Civil Liberties Union of Nev. v. City of Las Vegas, 466 F.3d 784, 794 (9th Cir.2006). To prosecute an individual for violating SB 6251, an official must determine whether a particular advertisement contains each of the elements of the statute. Since Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing that SB. 6251 is a content-based restriction that implicates First Amendment rights, it is Defendants’ burden to demonstrate that the statute is constitutional. Perry, 460 U.S. at 45, 103 S.Ct. 948; see also Thalheimer v. City of San Diego, 645 F.3d 1109, 1115-16 (9th Cir.20-11) (<HOLDING>). To do so, Defendants must show that SB 6251
holding that once the employee makes its prima facie showing the burden then shifts to the employer to prove that legitimate reasons supported the termination holding that once the moving party meets its burden the nonmoving party is obliged to produce evidence in response holding that once movant established right to summary judgment burden shifts to nonmovant to demonstrate otherwise holding that once the moving party makes a colorable claim that its first amendment rights have been in fringed or are threatened with infringement the burden shifts to the government to justify the restriction recognizing that the burden on summary judgment shifts to the nonmoving party once the moving party has met its initial responsibility of showing the absence of a triable issue of fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment if the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case