FREE SPEECH AND COMMERCIAL SPEECH
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et. al. v. FDA, Questions, p. 255
1. According to the majority opinion, what is the government’s “substantial” interest?
Why does the FDA’s graphic warning fail to “directly advance” that interest?
The government’s interest is in getting people to quit smoking to reduce disease risk and
2. According to the dissenting opinion, what is the government’s “substantial” interest?
Why does the FDA’s graphic warning rule “directly advance” it? And why is the FDA’s
rule sufficiently tailored to fit its purpose?
In addition to the government’s interest in getting people to quit smoking, there is also an interest
in communicating to consumers the dangers of smoking. The international experience and FDA
3. Research: Find out how the Central Hudson test was applied in the following cases:
(a) The city of Baltimore passed an ordinance banning billboard advertising of
alcoholic beverages and cigarettes near schools and playgrounds.
In Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City, 855 F.Supp. 811 (D.Md.,
1994), the District Court held the ordinance constitutional. The court held that 1) the advertising was not misleading; 2) the
city’s interest in the welfare of its youth and citizenry was substantial; 3) the ordinance directly advanced the city’s interest;
and 4) the ordinance was narrowly tailored to meet the interest of the city. The Court of Appeals a,rmed this decision. The
United States Supreme Court overturned the decision based on the Rhode Island state case described below.
(b) The state of Rhode Island passed a law banning the mention of price from all
advertising of alcoholic beverages.
In 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996), the United States Supreme Court held that the
ban on advertising liquor prices was unconstitutional. Justice Stevens noted that 1) the advertising was not misleading; 2) the
state’s interest in “promoting temperance” could be deemed substantial; 3) the regulation did not directly advance the
interest of the city; and 4) that the regulation was not narrowly tailored but was overly broad.
(c) The New York State Liquor Authority banned the Bad Frog Brewery label that
showed a frog with the second of its four unwebbed fingers extended in a gesture of
insult.