Tag: First Amendment

Immoral and Scandalous Trademarks Are Now Allowed According to Today’s U.S. Supreme Court Decision

On June 24, 2019, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Iancu v. Brunetti, addressing whether, in light of its previous holding in Matal v. Tam, the Lanham (Trademark) Act’s prohibition on registration of “immoral” and “scandalous” trademarks represents a violation of the First Amendment.  Six justices joined the majority opinion, which held that both the immoral and the scandalous provisions of the Lanham Act do not square with the First Amendment and, thus, must be invalidated.

Respondent Erik Brunetti founded a clothing line that uses the trademark and brand name ‘FUCT’.  When Brunetti attempted to register his trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the registration was denied on the grounds that the mark was “a total vulgar” and therefore could not be registered.  Brunetti appealed, arguing that, particularly in light of Tam (which held that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act represented a First Amendment Violation), the Lanham Act’s exclusion of immoral and scandalous marks as eligible for federal registration by the USPTO also represented unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

The government argued that the ban on such marks was viewpoint-neutral, and, in any case, could be constructed in a limiting way such that the only prohibition would be to marks that are offensive or shocking due to their mode of expression, regardless of the views presented by the marks.  Doing this, according to the government, would result in only vulgar—lewd, sexually explicit, and profane—marks being refused registration, which would make the prohibition constitutional.

The Supreme Court disagreed, explaining that “the statute says something markedly different”.  The Lanham Act, as written “does not draw the line at lewd, sexually explicit, or profane marks…[or] refer only to marks whose “mode of expression,” independent of viewpoint, is particularly offensive.”  Moreover, the Supreme Court explained, while the Lanham Act clearly has a legitimate purpose, it is still not permitted to engage in viewpoint-based discrimination.  As an illustration, the Supreme Court pointed to several contradictions by the USPTO when it came to attempts to register a trademark (‘KO KANE’ rejected as a trademark for beverages while ‘SAY NO TO DRUGS—REALITY IS THE BEST TRIP IN LIFE’ registered; ‘BONG HITS 4 JESUS’ refused registration due to the belief that “Christians would be morally outraged” but ‘JESUS DIED FOR YOU’ allowed registration on clothing).

Between Tam and Brunetti, the Lanham Act has now lost its ability to exclude a wide swath of potential trademarks.  Previously, Examining Attorneys with the USPTO were permitted to refuse registration of a trademark, even if it was not phonetically equivalent to a curse word (as in the present case), if the Examining Attorney felt that the trademark was, or could potentially be, offensive or outside the “accepted” viewpoint.  This is why ‘BONG HITS 4 JESUS’ was refused registration but ‘JESUS DIED FOR YOU’ was allowed; as the Supreme Court opinion notes, one mark suggests irreverence while the other suggests religious faith and, while some may find the first mark offensive, it is not the place of the USPTO to police what is and is not objectionable.  Marks that are disparaging, explicit, immoral, and/or scandalous are now eligible for registration with the USPTO.  Brunetti should now be granted federal registration for his clothing brand and enjoy the additional protections that come from having the USPTO backing a trademark.

 

© 2019 Davis|Kuelthau, s.c. All Rights Reserved
This article was written by Erin E. Kaprelian of Davis Kuelthau.
Learn more about SCOTUS IP decisions on the National Law Review Intellectual Property page.

Are You Still Minding the Gap? A Check-Up for Navigating Line Between Political and Hate Speech and Workplace Acceptability

megaphone political speech hate speechIn December 2015, we broadly reviewed concerns and compliance issues for employers when managing employees engaged in workplace political speech or those accused of engaging in “hate” speech in the workplace. A brief scan of headlines so far into 2017 reveals more than 900 instances of alleged violence, hate speech, and harassment in and out of workplaces reported since late January. Human Resource professionals and in-house counsel may wonder, again—what are the company’s obligations and duties to our employees?

A quick review: “Political activity” and “political affiliation” are only protected statuses for certain employees and in certain locales. Courts have held the First Amendment protects public employees from their employers using political affiliation as a basis for employment decisions. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 expressly prohibits political affiliation discrimination toward federal employees. Several states have passed their own statutes concerning private-sector employees:

  • Michigan prohibits direct or indirect threats against employees for the purpose of influencing their vote;

  • Oregon prohibits threatening loss of employment in order to influence the way an employee votes on any candidate or issue;

  • Florida considers it a felony criminal offense to discharge or threaten to discharge an employee for voting, or not voting, in any election (municipal, county or state) for any candidate or measure submitted for a public vote;

  • Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia prohibit employers from posting or distributing notices threatening to close their businesses or lay off employees if a particular candidate is elected; and

  • California, Colorado, New York, North Dakota, and Louisiana have passed laws deeming it illegal for an employer to retaliate against an employee for off-duty participation in politics or political campaigns.

Several cities, such as Lansing, Michigan; Madison, Wisconsin and Seattle, Washington, protect political affiliation similar to protections afforded race, sex, age and disability, even for private sector employees.

Beyond these mandated protections, private sector employees should be mindful of workplace speech and conduct. For example, managers and supervisors who express any type of political opinion to subordinate employees may expose themselves to subsequent claims they acted out of bias against those employees on the basis of other protected statuses. How could an employee draw such a connection in his or her allegation? As we saw in the most recent election cycle, some political candidates across all levels (local, state and federal) voiced strong opinions about race relations, foreign relations policy, religious freedom, Second Amendment rights, immigration, LGBT rights and other issues directly related to characteristics protected by federal, state or local workplace anti-discrimination laws. Dropping into a workplace political debate with a subordinate employee about a candidate, elected official, political party, cause or other political issue risks allowing that employee to associate expressed opinions with some type of prohibited discriminatory bias.

Best Practices Check-up

  1. Understand there could be laws relating to workplace political speech or activities in your location;

  2. Educate managers and supervisors regarding what laws impact the workplace as well as the employer’s workplace culture; training can form a vital line of defense by limiting potential exposure before it has a chance to evolve;

  3. Remind managers and supervisors how personal opinions can be viewed by subordinate employees as a form of prohibited workplace bias; and

  4. Encourage managers and supervisors to resist being drawn into workplace political discussions, particularly with subordinate employees.

Should an employee file an internal complaint alleging a workplace hate-based incident, conduct a measured, consistent investigation to determine what (happened), who (was targeted) and if hate speech or other actions (based on a protected class or against company culture) is likely to have occurred. Resist assumptions.

If the investigation yields a conclusion that inappropriate behavior occurred, initiate appropriate actions to (1) hold employees appropriately accountable (for example, through formal warning up to discharge) and (2) decrease the likelihood of repeated incidents. Resist any media, or social media, attention that can serve to derail thoughtful consideration of the facts and promote an atmosphere leading to impulsive decisions.

ARTICLE BYJay M. Dade of Polsinelli PC

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

Supreme Court Rules Public Employee Demoted For Perceived Political Activity Can Bring First Amendment Challenge

In a 6-to-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that when a public employer demotes an employee in order to prevent the employee from exercising his free-speech rights, the employee may challenge that action as a violation of the First Amendment and §1983, even if the employer was mistaken about the employee’s behavior. The Court found that the government’s motive is what matters and that the constitutional violation of discouraging employees from engaging in protected political activity and speech is the same regardless of whether or not the employer was mistaken about the employee’s political involvement. Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016).

Supervisor Assumed Employee Supported Opposing Candidate

Jeffrey Heffernan was a police officer in Paterson, N.J., a twenty-year veteran of the force. After being promoted to detective in 2005, he was assigned to the office of the chief of police. In April 2006, the city was in the middle of a mayoral election where the incumbent had the support of Heffernan’s supervisors, but the challenger was a former Paterson police chief and friend of Heffernan. Heffernan could not even vote in the election as he did not live in the city but his mother did.

One afternoon, while off duty, Heffernan went, at his mother’s request, to the challenger’s campaign office to get a new yard sign for his mother’s yard. Other members of the police force saw him with the sign. The following day, Heffernan’s supervisors demoted him to patrol officer and assigned him to a walking patrol post. They demoted him as punishment for what they thought was his “overt involvement” in the challenger’s campaign, even though that belief was mistaken. Heffernan was not involved in the campaign but merely picked up the sign to help his bedridden mother.

Heffernan sued, alleging his demotion violated the First Amendment. He asserted that his supervisors demoted him because they thought he engaged in constitutionally protected speech, even though they were mistaken about his actions. The district court and Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected his claim, holding that a free-speech retaliation claim under §1983 lies only when the government retaliated against an employee who actually exercised his First Amendment rights, not on the mistaken perception that he exercised protected rights.

High Court Rules In Favor Of First Amendment Protection 

Generally, the First Amendment prohibits government officials from dismissing or demoting an employee because that employee engaged in constitutionally protected political activity or speech. Heffernan argued that the government’s motive in taking an adverse employment action is the key to a public employee’s retaliation claim. He alleged that as long as a government employer believed that the employee was engaged in protected activity and took adverse action because of that belief, the employer violated the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Writing for the majority, Justice Breyer stated that “the government’s reason for demoting Heffernan is what counts here.” The Court ruled that when a government employer demotes an employee because it wants to prevent the employee from engaging in political activity protected by the First Amendment, the employee is entitled to challenge that unlawful action under the First Amendment and §1983, even if the employer is acting upon a factual mistake regarding the employee’s behavior. The Court stated that the employer’s mistake does not diminish the risk of harm to the demoted employee or to others who fear similar adverse consequences of engaging in protected activity.

The Court left the door open, however, for government employers to adopt a neutral policy that prohibits police officers from overt involvement in any political campaign. Whether a specific neutral policy meets constitutional muster is a question the Court left for another day.

It’s the Employer’s Ill Motive that Matters, Not the Employee’s Exercise of Rights

The Court’s ruling means that a public employer can be held liable for violating an employee’s constitutional rights even where the employee admits he wasn’t exercising those rights. The public employer’s desire or motive to keep the employee from engaging in protected political activity is enough to give the employee a viable claim for damages under §1983 regardless of whether the employee engaged in any activity protected by the Constitution.

Article By Joanna R. Vilos of Holland & Hart LLP
Copyright Holland & Hart LLP 1995-2016.

Third Circuit Federal Appeals Court Rules Attorneys Have Right to Publish Praise from Judges

The Rainmaker Institute

A federal appeals court issued a ruling yesterday that attorneys have a First Amendment right to publish ads that quote judges praising them, a decision that reverses a lower court ruling.

federal judgeThe case involves a New Jersey employment attorney, Andrew Dwyer, who initially published praise from two jurists on his website.  The published quotes were excerpts from unpublished (but publicly available) judicial opinions.   One of the judges sent Dwyer a letter requesting that his quote be removed from the website.  Dwyer refused because he did not believe the quote was misleading or false.

The matter was forwarded to a committee of the New Jersey Bar, resulting in a proposed guideline that barred attorneys from using a quotation from a judge or court opinion regarding the attorney’s abilities or legal services.  Dwyer argued that the new guideline was an unconstitutional ban on free speech.

Fast-forward to 2012, when the NJ Supreme Court approved an amended guideline saying that attorneys could use quotes from judges or opinions, but that the full text of the opinion must be used instead of excerpts.

Dwyer filed suit against the NJ Bar committee that developed the guideline before it went into effect and moved for a TRO and preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of the guideline.  A NJ District Court denied the request.  Both parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which the District Court granted to the committee.

Dwyer then appealed and yesterday, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in his favor, calling the guideline “onerous” and saying that it imposed an unconstitutional burden on Dwyer:

“Guideline 3 as applied to Dwyer’s accurate quotes from judicial opinions thus violates his First Amendment right to advertise his commercial services. Requiring Dwyer to reprint in full on his firm’s website the opinions noted above is not reasonably related to preventing consumer deception.”

This decision could have farther-reaching effects in terms of how attorneys use testimonials in their advertising.  Will certainly be interesting to watch!

ARTICLE BY

Stephen Fairley
 
OF 
The Rainmaker Institute

U.S. Supreme Court Gives Increased Protection to Government Employees

The Supreme Court recently ruled unanimously that government employees who testify about public corruption are protected by the First Amendment. The case, Lane v. Franks,[1] centered on a public employee, Lane, who worked at an Alabama community college where he led the school’s program for at-risk youth.

While working for the community college, Lane discovered a state representative was on the program’s payroll, despite doing no work for the program. Lane terminated the representative’s employment, and subsequently, the representative was indicted by federal authorities on corruption-related charges. Lane testified, under subpoena, at the representative’s trial in 2008. In 2009, Lane was fired from the college. Lane sued the community college president individually and in his official capacity alleging that the official violated his First Amendment protections.

The college president argued that Lane’s sworn testimony was not protected by the First Amendment because it was based on information that he gathered from his role as a state employee, not as a private citizen. The lower courts agreed with the college president, determining that Lane acted in his official capacity when firing the state representative and had acted in the same capacity when testifying at her trial. The Supreme Court disagreed and stated that Lane testified “as a citizen on a matter of public concern.” According to Justice Sotomayor, “Truthful testimony under oath by a public employee outside the scope of his ordinary job duties is speech as a citizen for First Amendment purposes. That is so even when the testimony relates to his public employment or concerns information learned during that employment.”

The ruling means that government employees should feel more protected when stepping forward with whistleblower-type information. Both public and private employers should exercise caution when taking negative actions against an employee who has complained of or filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in some kind of investigation or proceeding, as the action could be considered retaliatory.

[1] No. 13-483 (2014).

Article By:

Luke A. Wingfield
Of:
McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

Domain Names and the First Amendment: The Latest Word

The National Law Review recently featured an article regarding Domain Names written by Tim Hyland of Ifrah Law:

 

The intersection of domain names and the First Amendment is not new. Indeed, in the early days of the domain name system, courts considered the issue of whether a domain name registrar could prohibit the registration of domain names on the basis of content – for instance, domain names containing profanities.  See Nat’l A-1 Advertising, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 121 F. Supp. 2d 156 (D.N.H. 2000); Seven Words LLC v. Network Solutions, Inc., 260 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2001). However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently was confronted, in Gibson v. Texas Dep’t of Insurance, with a new twist on the First Amendment as it applies to domain names: whether a particular domain name is pure “commercial speech” (entitled to only limited First Amendment protection) or “expressive speech” (entitled to more extensive protection).

The Texas Labor Code prohibits the use together of the words and phrases “Texas,” and “Workers Compensation,” or similar abbreviations. Nonetheless, Gibson, a workers compensation lawyer in Texas, registered the domain name texasworkerscomplaw.com. On the associated website, Gibson discusses matters relating to Texas workers compensation law and, of course, advertises his law practice. The Texas Department of Insurance took offense to Gibson’s domain name, and sent Gibson a cease and desist letter. Gibson, being a lawyer, sued in federal court, alleging that the Texas Labor Code restrictions violated his constitutional rights.

The Fifth Circuit, in an interesting opinion, addressed the commercial speech/pure speech dichotomy inherent in domain names used by commercial enterprises, but artfully dodged the question of whether the domain name was in fact commercial speech. Instead, the court first analyzed whether, if the domain name was in fact commercial speech (which can under some circumstances be restricted), it was the sort of commercial speech that the Texas Department of Insurance could restrict.

The court found, correctly, that commercial speech can be restricted only if it is “inherently likely to deceive.” The state argued that Gibson’s domain name implied a connection with or approval of the state. The Fifth Circuit dispensed with the state’s argument, noting that since there was nothing to suggest that texasworkerscomplaw.com could not be viewed in a non-deceptive fashion (a truism), the state could not restrict the use of the domain name as commercial speech.

There is a second exception allowing a restriction on commercial speech: A state may regulate non-deceptive commercial speech if the restriction “advances a substantial state interest” and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. On this issue, the Fifth Circuit sent the case back to the federal district court to develop a factual record. It seems unlikely that the Texas Department of Insurance will prevail in the end, as the statute on which its objection is based is vastly overreaching, and would prohibit anyone providing services relating to workers compensation in Texas from registering domain names that accurately describe what they do. For instance, a physician who performs workers compensation examinations could not register texasworkerscompdoc.com (as of this writing, this domain name is available for the taking).

Obviously, such a domain name is not misleading, and there is no legitimate basis upon which the state can restrict it. Domain names are often a form of speech. Just because they are a relatively new format of expression does not change this fact and give the government a basis to attempt to restrict their use.

© 2012 Ifrah PLLC

Are Bloggers’ Free Speech Rights Under Attack?

The National Law Review recently published an article by Jesse L. Jenike-Godshalk of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP regarding Blogger’s Free Speech:

A recent legal opinion has some concerned about just how broad free speech rights may be for bloggers who are not associated with institutional media, such as newspapers and television stations. In Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, No. CV-11-57-HZ, slip op. (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2011), a federal judge ruled that a self-proclaimed “investigative blogger” was not “media” and, therefore, was not entitled to certain First Amendment protections that are reserved for the media.Despite the alarm that this case has generated, it actually is not a major setback for the free speech rights of bloggers.

The Case: Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox

From late 2010 to early 2011, Crystal Cox made numerous blog posts in which she accused Obsidian Finance, LLC and one of the company’s senior principals, Kevin Padrick, of corrupt, fraudulent, and illegal conduct. Obsidian and Padrick subsequently sued Cox for defamation. Rather than hiring an attorney, Cox chose to defend pro se.

In August 2011, before the case went to trial, the judge granted summary judgment to Cox with regard to all but one of her blog posts, because the posts were statements of opinion protected by the First Amendment. See Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, No. CV-11-57-HZ, slip op. (D. Or. Aug. 23, 2011). A statement, such as a blog post, can be the basis for a defamation suit only if the statement is a provable assertion of fact. In contrast, statements of opinion are protected by the First Amendment. According to the judge, blog posts, by their very nature, are usually statements of opinion.

Prior to the trial, the judge still had several issues that he needed to resolve. Among these issues was Cox’s claim that she was “media” and therefore, based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the plaintiffs could not recover damages from her for defamation without proof that she was at least negligent in making the allegedly defamatory statements. The judge rejected that Cox was “media,” writing:

Defendant cites no cases indicating that a self-proclaimed “investigative blogger” is considered “media” . . . . Without any . . . authority on the issue, I decline to conclude that defendant in this case is “media” . . . .

Defendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist. For example, there is no evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting “the other side” to get both sides of a story. Without evidence of this nature, defendant is not “media.”

Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, No. CV-11-57-HZ, slip op. at 9 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2011). Following this ruling, the case went to trial, and the jury found for the plaintiffs, awarding $2.5 million in damages.

Not a Major Setback

Despite the concern that this case has generated, the case is not a major setback for the free speech rights of bloggers, and it can even be regarded as a pro-free speech case. First, some of the judge’s statements suggest that bloggers enjoy expansive First Amendment rights. In his ruling on summary judgment, the judge stated that blog posts, by their very nature, are usually “opinions” and not provable assertions of fact. Such “opinion posts” are protected under the First Amendment and are not actionable as defamation—regardless of whether the writer is “media.”

Second, the judge established a very low bar for what a blogger must do to enjoy the additional free speech protections that are reserved for “media.” To wit, a blogger must present some evidence that he or she is a journalist. Cox lost this issue because she presented no evidence.

The judge provided her with a list of seven types of evidence that she could have offered. This list does not create an exacting standard of proof for a blogger to meet. To be considered “media,” a blogger would not need to offer all seven types of evidence. In fact, a blogger would not necessarily need to offer any of the seven types of evidence. The list is not exhaustive, but is merely “[f]or example.” A blogger must present “evidence of this nature.” Thus, a blogger could prove that he or she is “media” by presenting types of evidence not on the list. In addition, most bloggers probably would be able to present some evidence of the types that are on the list—e.g., “proof of editing,” “keeping notes of conversations,” or “creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others.”

Had Cox hired an attorney, the attorney almost surely would have been able to offer some evidence that Cox was “media.” Actually, had Cox hired an attorney, she might have won the entire case on summary judgment—and she would have entirely avoided the issue of whether she was “media.” Herein lies the real lesson from this case: If you are sued for defamation, get yourself an attorney.

© 2012 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.

Under The Radar–The Supreme Court, Commercial Speech and the First Amendment

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by attorney  Charles M. English of Ober | Kaler regarding U.S. Supreme Court’s  view of the First Amendment as applied especially to political speech:

Ober

Over the past several years, a great deal has been written about the .  In both the 2010 and 2011 terms the Court in dramatic and well-publicized cases struck down federal (Citizens United) and state (Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom PAC) campaign finance restrictions as applied to corporate political donations and laws supporting public financing of candidates who forgo private donations.  These are of course significant, far-reaching decisions with major impacts on political discourse in the United States.  But even more may be going on in First Amendment jurisprudence when one looks beyond the headline-grabbing cases to less well publicized commercial speech cases.

More often than not the Court moves not dramatically, but in incremental steps as both the law and the Justices evolve and the Court personnel change.   Such an incremental step appears to have been taken by the Court this year with respect to commercial speech regulation – speech intended not for political discourse, but by commercial entities seeking to buy, sell, advertise, market or provide information to each other and consumers.

On June 23, 2011, the Court, in a 6-3 majority, issued Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc.,No. 10-779, striking down on First Amendment grounds Vermont’s law that prohibited the sale and use of physician prescription data for commercial purposes especially by pharmaceutical companies wishing to use that data to advertise and otherwise reach out to physicians in order to market their drugs.  Having monitored the case closely and attended the Court’s oral argument, I don’t think that the result itself was much of a surprise.  The Court concluded that the regulated activity interfered with the exchange of ideas and was thus speech and then concluded that the protected speech could not be regulated by Vermont in the fashion proposed.

What to many observers was less predictable was the breadth of the decision and the language employed in the majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined both by the four justices normally considered “conservative”, but also joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.  The majority appears to have applied a stricter standard to the “content and speaker-based” commercial speech restrictions than it has applied in the past.  So the question arises: Is the Court moving, however incrementally, towards a change in how it treats commercial speech under the First Amendment – one that would increase the level of scrutiny applied to restraints on such speech?

While Sorrell received far less coverage than many of other cases decided by the Court in the 2011 Term, commercial speech proponents have been quick to embrace the decision and to assert broader commercial speech rights.  After the Food and Drug Administration adopted new cigarette warning label requirements in the summer of 2011, R.J. Reynolds, together with other tobacco companies and supported by national advertising organizations, were quick to seek court intervention against the new warning label requirements. They relied in no small part on the expansive language found in Sorrell.  That suit, filed in mid-August, is set for a decision on motions for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment after a hearing before Judge Richard Leon in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on September 21, 2011.

To understand where the Court may be heading, it is important first to know where we have been.  While the First Amendment, which is also applicable to the States, might appear to the casual reader to be absolute  – “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . .”, it in fact has not been so regarded historically by the Court.  In 1942, the Court declared that commercial speech was not protected by the First Amendment at all.  The Court reversed course in 1976, declaring that some form of intermediate protection did exist for commercial speech, and established in 1980 a multi-part test (Central Hudson) for evaluating the constitutionality of commercial speech restrictions:  In order to regulated non-misleading commercial speech regarding otherwise legal activity, the government must establish that there is a substantial state interest, that the regulation directly advances that state interest, and that the regulation is narrowly tailored to advance that substantial interest.

It doesn’t take a lawyer to conclude that this test is confusing, and not surprisingly, most observers from a wide array of the political spectrum have concluded that the results of the cases decided under Central Hudson are unpredictable and that the test is simply unworkable.  Importantly, Justice Clarence Thomas has repeatedly criticized the Court’s commercial speech jurisprudence directly, with some indirect support from others from the Court’s so-called conservative wing.

The majority in Sorrell certainly did not overrule (at least not expressly or entirely)Central Hudson.  However, the majority opinion , however subtly, appears to provide a measurable shift in the First Amendment analysis by the Court by carving out in commercial speech cases types of restrictions to which the majority appears to provide some form of scrutiny greater than the protections found in theCentral Hudson test.   Indeed and perhaps most tellingly the minority opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer accuses the majority of having created a new test, stricter than Central Hudson, for content-based or speaker-based speech that undermines the differentiation of commercial speech from what is often called core First Amendment speech.  If so, the court may have indirectly moved towards Justice Thomas’ assertion that commercial speech should not be treated differently from core speech.

In the short run, we should expect the decision in Sorrell to actually add to the confusion that surrounds Central Hudson.  Will lower courts such as the one now presented with the cigarette warning dispute conclude that there is a new, higher standard?  If so, in which cases will this new standard apply, and how will those cases be decided?  This is not an academic or legalistic point.  Both business and government thrive on certainty in results, and legal uncertainty is simply very expensive for everyone:  When states lose these First Amendment cases, they normally must pay the attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party; meanwhile, businesses subject to regulation of uncertain legality incur costs in complying and challenging such regulation.  Nobody benefits from this kind of uncertainty – well, except for the lawyers of course.

Of course, we may not have long to wait after all.  The case of the FDA regulation of cigarette packaging,  or possible other cases involving other governmental regulation of health-care claims or of health insurance, or new food safety regulation – any one of these could give rise to litigation that provides new guidance, clarity or even another incremental step.  However, when one goes back to the text of the First Amendment and its absolute prohibition on abridging the freedom of speech, examines the Court’s recent dramatic political speech cases in the past two terms, considers the muscular conservative majority, and carefully reads between the lines of Sorrell (decided with six votes in the majority), one must conclude that we are in for interesting times, and that advocates of commercial speech restrictions, including anti-smoking advocates, may now face a greater uphill battle in defending and maintaining what have come to be accepted restrictions in marketing and advertising in the United States.

© 2011 Ober | Kaler