In this case, the Sixth Circuit considered the meaning of an Ohio statute that banned all solicitation of workers’ compensation claims. Though the canon of constitutional avoidance might counsel for a narrower reading of the law—one that banned only solicitation using illegally obtained records—the court held that the statutory text was unambiguous and could not bear that narrower reading. The constitutional avoidance canon, the panel noted, “does not allow [courts] to re-write an unconstitutional statute to save it,” Slip Op. at 12, but only “functions as a means of choosing between” possible interpretations, id. (quoting Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 385 (2005)). Here, the court did not believe the statute was ambiguous. So it interpreted its language faithfully as encompassing all solicitation of workers’ compensation claims, and it held that the statute violates the First Amendment.