- Court: U.S. Supreme Court (cert stage)
- Issue: Compelled Commercial Speech
- Status: Pending
- Whether the legal standard of Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), requiring reduced scrutiny of compelled commercial speech, applies beyond the need to prevent consumer deception?
- When Zauderer applies, whether it is sufficient that the compelled speech be: (a) factually accurate— even if controversial and, when read as a whole, potentially misleading; and (b) merely reasonably related to any non-“trivial” governmental interest.
The Retail Litigation Center filed a brief joined by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable in support of certiorari and asking the Court to resolve the Circuit split on the legal standard to apply to laws compelling speech by businesses and to prevent the government from compelling speech in an attempt to promote an agenda and skewing the marketplace of ideas in way that violates the First Amendment.
The Court granted the petition, vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra. (The Court in Becerra held that petitions are likely to succeed on their claim that the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act (FACT ACT) violates the 1st A.)
Procedural History & Case Documents