VICTORY, J.

This case comes to us on direct appeal pursuant to La. Const. art. V, § 5(D)(1) after a district court found La. R.S. 14:126.3.1(A)(3), pertaining to the unauthorized participation in medical assistance programs, facially unconstitutional. After reviewing the record and the applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the district court and uphold the constitutionality of La. R.S. 14:126.3.1(A)(3).

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 23, 2012, Micah Smith was charged in the 19th JDC with a violation of La. R.S. 14:126.3.1, which provides:

Added by 2009 La. Acts. 337, eff. July 1, 2009.

Specifically, the state alleged:

The state alleges in its brief that it expects to prove at trial that Micah Smith was excluded from participating in medical assistance programs through the administrative process by the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals ("DHH") for various allegations of fraud and misconduct. Among other things, DHH administers the Louisiana Medicaid Program. After that exclusion, Smith continued to serve as the billing agent for Medicaid providers, despite his exclusion.1

On February 4, 2013, defendant filed a motion to quash in which he challenged La. R.S. 14:126.3.1(A)(4) ("Seeks, obtains, or maintains a contract with a provider") as overbroad because it would "prohibit a substantial amount of free speech and actions which would be protected under the First Amendment." It is apparent that this provision was intended to prevent a person who is excluded from being employed by, contracting with, or having an ownership or management interest in, any entity that provides services which will be billed to any medical assistance program, from contracting with a provider of such services in order to continue to profit thereby. However, defendant argues that it goes too far in prohibiting any contractual arrangement between an excluded person and a Medicaid provider, which "can run the gamut from cutting a provider's grass, to cleaning their home or office, to cutting their hair, or selling them insurance." Therefore, defendant contended that the enactment prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech and the freedom to associate and is thus overbroad. In opposition, the state argued that contractual freedom is not constitutionally protected speech as contemplated by the overbreadth doctrine.

On April 9, 2013, defendant filed a second motion to quash in which he challenged La. R.S. 14:126.3.1(A)(3) ("Seeks, obtains, or retains any monies or payments derived in whole or in part from any state or federal medical assistance funds while excluded from participation in any state or federal medical assistance program") as overbroad. Defendant argued that this provision "is so sweeping in its proscription that it denies a wide range of protected benefits to which a majority of Americans are entitled." For example, defendant argued that "[a]n excluded provider would not be able to live in government subsidized housing and would not be able to obtain a home loan which was subsidized by the federal government in any way." In opposition, the state argued that the statute is not unconstitutional because it does not affect recipients of the government benefits as those payments are not "state or federal medical assistance funds" due to the fact that they are made directly to healthcare providers.2

At a hearing on July 2, 2013, the district court denied defendant's first motion to quash but granted his second motion.3 Because the district court ruled that La. R.S. 14:126.3.1(A)(3) is unconstitutional, the matter is directly before us pursuant to La. Const. art. V, § 5(D), under which a case is appealable to this Court if a law or ordinance has been declared unconstitutional.

DISCUSSION

The state argues that the trial court erred in finding La. R.S. 14:126.3.1(A)(3) unconstitutional on its face on the basis of overbreadth because the statute does not prohibit protected speech. The state contends that La. R.S. 14:126.3.1(A)(3) prohibits conduct rather than any form of expression.4 The state also contends that defendant's construction of the statute, under which he claims a person could be denied federal benefits, is unreasonable and, regardless, even if that interpretation were proper, there is no First Amendment right (or other fundamental right) to receive government benefits. In addition, the state argues that the statute may not be invalidated because defendant's unsupported allegations are insufficient to show his hypothesized unconstitutional applications are "real" and "substantial" in accordance with overbreadth jurisprudence. Thus, the state argues that defendant failed to show any realistic danger that a person excluded from participation in Medicaid or Medicare would not be eligible to receive benefits from those programs.5

"As a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 468, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010) (citing Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 573, 122 S.Ct. 1700, 152 L.Ed.2d 771 (2002)). The overbreadth doctrine applies to constitutional challenges made under the First Amendment:

State v. Sandifer, 95-2226 (La.9/5/96), 679 So.2d 1324, 1332.

The overbreadth doctrine has been described as "strong medicine," to be used "sparingly," and "only as a last resort." See Broadrick, supra, 413 U.S. at 613, 93 S.Ct. 2908. "In short, there must be a realistic danger that the statute itself will significantly compromise recognized First Amendment protections of parties not before the Court for it to be facially challenged on overbreadth grounds." Members of City Council of City of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 801, 104 S.Ct. 2118, 2126, 80 L.Ed.2d 772 (1984). Thus, "[t]he overbreadth claimant bears the burden of demonstrating, `from the text of [the law] and from actual fact,' that substantial overbreadth exists." Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113, 122, 123 S.Ct. 2191, 2198, 156 L.Ed.2d 148 (2003) (quoting New York State Club Assn., Inc. v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1, 14, 108 S.Ct. 2225, 2234, 101 L.Ed.2d 1 (1988)).6

"In a facial challenge to the overbreadth... of a law, a court's first task is to determine whether the enactment reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct." Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1191, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982). Although some academic commentators have advocated for the use of the overbreadth doctrine outside the context of the First Amendment, see, e.g., John F. Decker, Overbreadth Outside the First Amendment, 34 N.M. L.Rev. 53 (2004), Justice Scalia recently reiterated that "`[t]he fact that [a law] might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of circumstances is insufficient to render it wholly invalid, since [the Supreme Court has] not recognized an `overbreadth' doctrine outside the limited context of the First Amendment.'" Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. ___, ___, 132 S.Ct. 2492, 2515, 183 L.Ed.2d 351 (2012) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 2100, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987)) (emphasis added).7 See also Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 268 n. 18, 104 S.Ct. 2403, 2412, 81 L.Ed.2d 207 (1984) ("[O]utside the limited First Amendment context, a criminal statute may not be attacked as overbroad"); Nevada Com'n on Ethics v. Carrigan, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2343, 2347, 180 L.Ed.2d 150 (2011) ("The First Amendment has no application when what is restricted is not protected speech"). Finally, the United States Supreme Court has held that "[r]arely if ever will an overbreadth challenge succeed against a law or regulation that is not specifically addressed to speech or to conduct necessarily associated with speech (such as picketing or demonstrating)." Virginia v. Hicks, supra, 539 U.S. at 124, 123 S.Ct. 2191.

With that background, and as stated above in Sandifer, this Court has found that overbreadth invalidation of statutes is generally inappropriate where statutes prohibit conduct rather than speech, especially where the conduct at issue is harmful or criminal. See also State v. Neal, 500 So.2d 374 (La.1987) (statutes prohibiting solicitation of prostitution and solicitation of crime against nature not unconstitutionally overbroad as they affect conduct rather than speech); State v. Brown, 94-1290 (La.1/17/95), 648 So.2d 872 (statute which enhances penalties for persons convicted of distributing narcotics within 1,000 feet of school property not unconstitutionally overbroad as the statute affects conduct rather than speech and the conduct is illegal); State v. Greco, 583 So.2d 825 (La.1991) (statute prohibiting commercial purchase of fish from a person who does not possess a valid fishing license not subject to overbreadth analysis). Defendant points to State v. Muschkat, 96-2922 (La.3/4/98), 706 So.2d 429, wherein this Court found a statute criminalizing certain conduct to be overbroad. The statute in Muschkat was a drug-traffic loitering statute, La. R.S. 40:981.4, under which a person could be arrested for merely being in a high-crime neighborhood. In Muschkat, we recognized that "the First Amendment protects more than just speech, such as the right of association," 706 So.2d at 435, citing to Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 91 S.Ct. 1686, 29 L.Ed.2d 214 (1971), where the United States Supreme Court had struck down a statute which prohibited people from loitering on a sidewalk as overbroad. We found the statute to be overbroad because it criminalized a substantial amount of constitutionally protected activities, such as: being in an area known for unlawful drug use; being on premises that have been reported as places suspected of unlawful drug activity; being within six feet of a vehicle registered to a known unlawful drug user; repeatedly beckoning to, stopping, or attempting to stop passersby or engaging passersby in conversation; repeatedly stopping or attempting to stop vehicle operators by hailing, waving of arms, or any other bodily gesture; and circling an area in a car and repeatedly beckoning to, contacting, or attempting to stop pedestrians. 706 So.2d at 436. Contrary to the statute at issue in Muschkat, the statute at issue here does not criminalize any constitutionally protected activities, and has nothing to do with the right to assemble. We find the Muschkat case to be clearly distinguishable.

Pursuant to the above line of cases, prohibiting defendant from serving as the billing agent for Medicaid providers, after being excluded from doing so because of allegations of past fraud and misconduct, is not the type of conduct that the United States Supreme Court, or this Court, has ever recognized as conduct protected by the First Amendment. Further, assuming for the sake of argument that district court's interpretation of the statute is correct and defendant could be prevented from obtaining Medicaid or Medicare benefits, the overbreadth argument still fails because the First Amendment is not implicated in the receipt of those types of government benefits. Although, as noted above, there has been some slight extension of the overbreadth doctrine into areas implicating other fundamental constitutionally-protected rights, "[t]he receipt of Medicare benefits has never been held to be a fundamental right." Arruejo v. Thompson, 2001 WL 1563699 *16 (E.D.N.Y.2001). See also Lavine v. Milne, 424 U.S. 577, 584 n. 9, 96 S.Ct. 1010, 1015, 47 L.Ed.2d 249 (1976) ("Welfare benefits are not a fundamental right, and neither the State nor Federal Government is under any sort of constitutional obligation to guarantee minimum levels of support"); Rivers v. Schweiker, 684 F.2d 1144, 1157-58 (5th Cir.1982) ("This complaint of a violation of Rivers' right to substantive due process is cognizable only if this claim for social security benefits involves an assertion of a fundamental right.... Rivers points to no authority which would support application of this theory of substantive due process to her claim."). This conclusion is consistent with the only reported appellate decision to consider whether a state Medicaid fraud statute should be voided for overbreadth. In State v. Vogelsong, 82 Ohio App.3d 354, 612 N.E.2d 462 (1992), a pharmacist appealed his conviction of Medicaid fraud in violation of R.C. 2913.40(B). The intermediate appellate court quickly rejected defendant's contention that the statute, which provided that "No person shall knowingly make or cause to be made a false or misleading statement or representation for use in obtaining reimbursement from the medical assistance program," is overbroad:

Vogelsong, 82 Ohio App.3d at 362, 612 N.E.2d at 467-68.

CONCLUSION

The overbreadth doctrine is "strong medicine" to be used "sparingly" and "only as a last resort." The overbreath argument fails here no matter how La. R.S. 14:126.3.1(A)(3) is interpreted because the statute does not reach "a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct." The First Amendment does not protect the conduct the statute clearly intends to prohibit, i.e., prohibiting defendant from serving as a billing agent for Medicaid providers after being excluded from doing so because of past fraud or misconduct. Nor is the First Amendment implicated in the receipt of Medicaid or Medicare benefits.

DECREE

For the reasons stated above, we reverse the district court ruling which found La. R.S. 14:126.3.1(A)(3) unconstitutional and remand the matter to the district court for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.