Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission

Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 17, 1980
Decided June 20, 1980
Full case name Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission
Citations 447 U.S. 557 (more)
100 S. Ct. 2343; 65 L. Ed. 2d 341; 1980 U.S. LEXIS 48; 6 Media L. Rep. 1497; 34 P.U.R.4th 178
Holding
A regulation of appellee New York Public Service Commission which completely bans an electric utility from advertising to promote the use of electricity violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Case opinions
Majority Powell, joined by Burger, Stewart, White, Marshall
Concurrence Brennan
Concurrence Blackmun, joined by Brennan
Concurrence Stevens, joined by Brennan
Dissent Rehnquist

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980), was an important case decided by the United States Supreme Court that laid out a four part test for determining when restrictions on commercial speech violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Justice Powell wrote the opinion of the court. Central Hudson Gas had challenged a Public Service Commission regulation that prohibited promotional advertising by electric utilities. Justice Blackmun and Justice Stevens wrote separate concurring opinions and were joined by Justice Brennan. Justice Rehnquist dissented.

The case presented the question whether a regulation of the New York Public Service Commission violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it completely bans promotional advertising by an electrical utility.

Contents

Holding

The court ruled that a regulation that completely bans an electric utility from advertising to promote the use of electricity violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The court instituted a four-step analysis for commercial speech to the Commission's arguments in support of its ban on promotional advertising:

  1. Is the expression protected by the First Amendment? For speech to come within that provision, it must concern lawful activity and not be misleading.
  2. Is the asserted governmental interest substantial?
  3. Does the regulation directly advance the governmental interest asserted?
  4. Is the regulation more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest?

Related cases

Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico, in which the Supreme Court determined that it was not unconstitutional for Puerto Rico to restrict commercial advertisement of legal casino gambling to residents, is regarded as a landmark case illustrating the elasticity of the Central Hudson standards.[1] In 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996), in which case a law prohibiting publication of liquor prices in Rhode Island was ruled unconstitutional, four justices advocated replacing the Central Hudson test with a more rigorous, less permissive standard.[2]

References

  1. ^ Moore, Roy L.; Ronald T. Farrar, Erik Collins (1998). Advertising and public relations law. Routledge. p. 34. ISBN 0805816798. 
  2. ^ Mauro, Tony (1999-01-20). "High court to re-examine commercial speech with gambling-ads case". The First Amendment Center. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=8524&printer-friendly=y. Retrieved 2009-06-01. 

Further reading

External links
 
Sedition and
imminent danger
Fighting words and
the heckler's veto
Freedom of assembly
and public forums
Symbolic speech
Compelled speech
School speech
Obscenity
Rosen v. United States (1896) • United States v. One Book Called Ulysses (S.D.N.Y. 1933) • Roth v. United States (1957) • One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958) • Marcus v. Search Warrant (1961) • MANual Enterprises v. Day (1962) • Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) • Quantity of Books v. Kansas (1964) • Freedman v. Maryland (1965) • Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966) • Redrup v. New York (1967) • Ginsberg v. New York (1968) • Stanley v. Georgia (1969) • United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs (1971) • Kois v. Wisconsin (1972) • Miller v. California (1973) • Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) • United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film (1973) • Jenkins v. Georgia (1974) • New York v. Ferber (1982) • American Booksellers v. Hudnut (7th Cir., 1985) • Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. (1986) • Osborne v. Ohio (1990) • United States v. X-Citement Video (1994) • Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) • United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group (2000) • Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) • Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2002) • Nitke v. Gonzales (S.D.N.Y., 2005) • United States v. Williams (2008) • FCC v. Fox Television Stations (2009 case) (2009) • American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland (6th Cir., 2009) • United States v. Kilbride (9th Cir., 2009) • United States v. Stevens (2010)
Public employees
Hatch Act
and similar laws
Commercial speech
Campaign finance and
political speech
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) • First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) • Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley (1981) • California Medical Association v. FEC (1981) • Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee (1982) • FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee (1985) • FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (1986) • Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) • McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995) • Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC (1996) • Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000) • FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) • McConnell v. FEC (2003) • FEC v. Beaumont (2003) • Randall v. Sorrell (2006) • FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007) • Davis v. FEC (2008) • Citizens United v. FEC (2010) • Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett. (2011)