FORT WAYNE, Ind. (WANE) — After receiving a cease and desist order from the Indiana Attorney’s General office, it seemed like Death Done Differently might never operate again. As a result, Lauren Richwine, owner of the company, began a legal battle against the State of Indiana, who claims she’s violating Indiana’s funeral home laws. Richwine -- who operates without owning a funeral home or having a funeral home license -- provides "non-medical forms of logistic, emotional, and spiritual support," according to the company's website. But what started as one case and an order for her to stop conducting business has morphed into two separate cases, a trip to the 7th District Court of Appeals in Chicago and her business remaining in operation to this day. The larger court case "This civil-rights lawsuit seeks to vindicate the First Amendment rights of Plaintiffs Lauren Richwine and Death Done Differently LLC." Those are the opening lines to a case opened up to defend Richwine's ability to talk to her clients about funeral proceedings. According to the lawsuit, Death Done Differently helps people "put their own end-of-life plan in place that is best for them and their loved ones." The most recent movement on the case was an order issued on March 20, 2024. An agreement quickly questioned While deciding the first case, both sides agreed on a cease and desist order. "Rather than take their issues in front of the Board [The Board of Funeral and Cemetary Service], Plaintiffs [Richwine and representatives] pursued settlement. The Attorney General proposed a draft Cease-and-Desist Agreement," reads court documents from U.S. District Court. "Ultimately, a Cease-and-Desist agreement (the"Agreement") was reached, the Board adopted it, and the Agreement became a final order in August 2023." Ultimately, the agreement meant Richwine would stop talking to people about funeral arrangements, body position, service choices, funeral paperwork, give verbal guidance to clients, assist in the arrangement of corpses, or even be present at a funeral service. However, the ink had yet to dry before Richwine and her representatives wanted it overturned, claiming it infringed on Richwine's First Amendment rights. They brought it to U.S. District Court Judge Holly Brady, challenging the ability to prevent Richwine from talking with clients. Richwine won the suit against the attorney general, and Brady ruled that she could have a preliminary injunction. That would allow her to remain in business, providing all of her normal services while the larger case slogged its way through the judicial system. Brady claimed the language in the contract was "not a clear and unmistakable waiver of the Plaintiff's First Amendment claims." In her opinion, the contract referenced Indiana law, but it was about federal rights guaranteed at the national level. "All other waiver provisions in the contract are limited to "rights under Indiana law" and "rights afforded by Indiana's Administrative Order and Procedure Act," Brady wrote in her ruling. "Plaintiff's claims derive from the federal Constitution, not Indiana law." The U.S. District Court decision put the cease-and-desist on ice. Dan King, a representative of her legal team put it simply. Richwine had, "won a lower court victory that held Lauren could continue discussing end-of-life care with her clients without needing to obtain onerous funeral-director and funeral-home licenses." The case climbs to Chicago On Wednesday, the can of worms was reopened in Chicago. After being dealt a blow in Indiana, the State appealed the decision to the 7th District Court of Appeals. Todd Rokita and the Board of Funeral and Cemetary Services looked to prove they could indeed limit Richwine's ability to speak to customers. "Creating a middleman type of situation in addition to the funeral service provider who is already coordinating different vendors and things of that nature," said a lawyer representing the state. "It does create the potential for fraud, it does create the potential for negligence, so it does make sense that the state would want to step in and govern that." The state contends that even if the whole cease-and-desist cannot meet First Amendment scrutiny, that doesn't mean the preliminary injunction should be able to wipe it out in its entirety. When courts look to determine whether any form of commercial speech is unconstitutional, they typically resort to a four-part standard called the "Central Hudson Test" in reference to a 1980 Supreme Court case: Under the first prong of the test, certain commercial speech is not entitled to protection; the informational function of advertising is the First Amendment concern and if an advertisement does not accurately inform the public about lawful activity, it can be suppressed. Accordingly, a statute prohibiting the practice of optometry under a trade name was sustained because there was a significant possibility that the public might be misled through deceptive use of the same or similar trade names. Second, if the speech is protected, the interest of the government in regulating and limiting it must be assessed. The state must assert a substantial interest to be achieved by restrictions on commercial speech. Third, the restriction cannot be sustained if it provides only ineffective or remote support for the asserted purpose. Instead, the regulation must directly advance the governmental interest. The Court resolves this issue with reference to aggregate effects, and does not limit its consideration to effects on the challenging litigant. Fourth, if the governmental interest could be served as well by a more limited restriction on commercial speech, the excessive restriction cannot survive. From Congress.gov In a back-and-forth with the state Wednesday, it seems that the court drilled down on the second point. Does the state have a large enough interest in order to limit the speech of Richwine? "Indiana needs to provide a compelling government interest, and you've been -- in your brief certainly -- pointing to the public health concerns which I'm trying to figure out," said one of the judges. The court is taking the decision under advisement. In a release from King and Richwine's legal team, the stakes were clearly set. "What protection does the First Amendment provide for personal advice that the government seeks to regulate through occupational licensing laws?" reads the release. "The decision will likely establish the free speech standard not just for this case, but for all Americans living in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin."