Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued January 7, 1985 Decided May 28, 1985 | |
Full case name | Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio |
Citations | 471 U.S. 626 (more) 105 S. Ct. 2265; 85 L. Ed. 2d 652 |
Case history | |
Prior | Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Zauderer, 10 Ohio St. 3d 44, 461 N.E.2d 883 (1984); probable jurisdiction noted, 469 U.S. 813 (1984). |
Holding | |
A State may require advertisers to include "purely factual and uncontroversial" disclosures without violating the First Amendment rights of the advertiser as long as the disclosure is in the State's interest in preventing deception of consumers. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | White, joined by Blackmun, Stevens (in full), Brennan, Marshall (Parts I, II, III, and IV), Burger, Rehnquist, O'Connor (Parts I, II, V, and VI) |
Concur/dissent | Brennan, joined by Marshall |
Concur/dissent | O'Connor, joined by Burger, Rehnquist |
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that states can require an advertiser to disclose certain information without violating the advertiser's First Amendment free speech protections as long as the disclosure requirements are reasonably related to the State's interest in preventing deception of consumers.[1] The decision effected identified that some commercial speech may have weaker First Amendment free speech protections than non-commercial speech and that states can compel such commercial speech to protect their interests; future cases have relied on the "Zauderer standard" to determine the constitutionality of state laws that compel commercial speech as long as the information to be disclosed is "purely factual and uncontroversial".
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search