Bigelow v. Virginia

Last updated

Bigelow v. Virginia
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 18, 1974
Decided June 16, 1975
Full case nameBigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Citations421 U.S. 809 ( more )
95 S. Ct. 2222; 44 L. Ed. 2d 600; 1975 U.S. LEXIS 73; 1 Media L. Rep. 1919
Case history
PriorConviction upheld by Virginia Supreme Court, 213 Va. 191, 191 S.E. 2d 173 (1972).
Holding
The First Amendment prevents states from prohibiting advertisements of clearly legal products or conduct.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William O. Douglas  · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
Case opinions
MajorityBlackmun, joined by Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell
DissentRehnquist, joined by White
Laws applied
U.S. Const., Amends. I and XIV

Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975), [1] was a United States Supreme Court decision that established First Amendment protection for commercial speech. [2] The ruling is an important precedent on challenges to government regulation of advertising, determining that such publications qualify as speech under the First Amendment.

Contents

Background

In 1960, Virginia passed a statute, which in turn was an updated version of a law from 1878, that charged anyone advertising a service that "encourage[s] or prompt[s] the procuring of abortion or miscarriage" with a misdemeanor. [3] In 1971, the Virginia Weekly of Charlottesville published an advertisement for an abortion service provider in New York City. The newspaper's editor, Jeffrey C. Bigelow, was charged with a misdemeanor under the statute. [1]

Bigelow was convicted by a local court and was charged a fine. He challenged the conviction at the Virginia Supreme Court with a free speech argument, though the court rejected this argument and upheld Bigelow's conviction. [4] The court's rationale was that per precedent, commercial advertisements received lesser free speech protection than personal or political speech. [2]

Bigelow, now represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, appealed the ruling to the United States Supreme Court in 1972.

Opinion of the court

At the time of Bigelow's conviction, abortion was not illegal in either Virginia (where the advertisement was published) or New York (the location of the business featured in the ad), though Virginia had attempted to restrict advertising that recommended or enabled the procedure. [1] Since abortion services were at issue in Bigelow's case, the U.S. Supreme Court deferred on the case because Roe v. Wade was pending at the time. The court remanded the case to Virginia for reconsideration in light of recent events, but the Virginia Supreme Court upheld Bigelow's misdemeanor conviction again. Bigelow appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court again, and with Roe v. Wade having been decided in the interim, the high court took the case in 1975. [2]

The high court ruled 7–2 in favor of Bigelow and overturned his conviction on First Amendment grounds. The majority opinion was written by Justice Harry Blackmun, who argued that the First Amendment prevents states from prohibiting advertisements for products or services that are legal in the state where such an ad is published. [2]

The court found that the Virginia statute was overbroad because it targeted persons who merely discussed or advertised objectionable conduct without engaging in that conduct themselves, while abortion itself was legal in Virginia at the time. [1] Meanwhile, in the wake of the Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973, the court noted that the Virginia statute attempted to outlaw political speech on an issue (abortion) of clear public interest, while that procedure had since been declared a constitutional right in its own regard. [1]

Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that commercial speech, at least for products or services that are legal, qualifies for First Amendment protection. In Blackmun's words, referring to newspaper ads in particular, "speech is not stripped of First Amendment protection merely because it appears in that form." [1] This finding was supported by precedents such as New York Times v. Sullivan . [5] Per another precedent, Ginzburg v. U.S., [6] "The existence of 'commercial activity, in itself, is no justification for narrowing the protection of expression secured by the First Amendment'." [1]

Impact and subsequent developments

Before Bigelow v. Virginia, the American judiciary had only addressed limited disputes over government regulation of commercial speech, and there had been few discussions of whether this wide category of speech qualified for protection under the First Amendment. [2] The Bigelow ruling has become a crucial component of what was later dubbed the commercial speech doctrine, in which advertisements can face limited restrictions in the event of describing illegal products and services, and hence somewhat less protection that personal speech, but otherwise advertisements are considered to be speech under the First Amendment. [7]

Subsequently, governments may have a reason to restrict a particular ad on a case-by-case basis, but that restriction must be justified via a compelling interest, [8] while the restriction must be a reasonable means for attaining that goal. [9] The ruling has also been cited as an important precedent on the right of the public to receive information in the form of advertising, particularly for products or services that are politically controversial or for which precise information is needed. [10]

Related Research Articles

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protected a right to have an abortion. The decision struck down many abortion laws, and it sparked an ongoing abortion debate in the United States about whether, or to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, and what the role of moral and religious views in the political sphere should be. The decision also shaped debate concerning which methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment protects students from being forced to salute the American flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance in public school.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court upheld the right to have an abortion as established by the "essential holding" of Roe v. Wade (1973) and issued as its "key judgment" the restoration of the undue burden standard when evaluating state-imposed restrictions on that right. Both the essential holding of Roe and the key judgment of Casey were overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022, with its landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court clarifying the legal definition of obscenity as material that lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". The ruling was the origin of the three-part judicial test for determining obscene media content that can be banned by government authorities, which is now known as the Miller test.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Comstock Act of 1873</span> United States anti-obscenity law

The Comstock Act of 1873 is a series of current provisions in Federal law that generally criminalize the involvement of the United States Postal Service, its officers, or a common carrier in conveying obscene matter, crime-inciting matter, or certain abortion-related matter. The Comstock Act is largely codified across title 18 of the United States Code and was enacted beginning in 1872 with the attachment of a rider to the Post Office Consolidation Act of 1872. Amended multiple times since initial enactment, most recently in 1996, the Act is nonetheless often associated with U.S. Postal Inspector and anti-vice activist Anthony Comstock.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harry Blackmun</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1970 to 1994

Harry Andrew Blackmun was an American lawyer and jurist who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1970 to 1994. Appointed by President Richard Nixon, Blackmun ultimately became one of the most liberal justices on the Court. He is best known as the author of the Court's opinion in Roe v. Wade.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Beginning in 2013, the decision was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions ruling that restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States were unconstitutional, including in the Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).

Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court decision upholding the conviction of an individual who had engaged in speech that raised a clear and present danger to society. While the majority of the Supreme Court Justices voted to uphold the conviction, the ruling has become an important free speech precedent due a concurring opinion by Justice Louis Brandeis recommending new perspectives on criticism of the government by citizens. The ruling was explicitly overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969.

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), is a U.S. constitutional law case which defined the free speech right of corporations for the first time. The United States Supreme Court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns. The ruling came in response to a Massachusetts law that prohibited corporate donations in ballot initiatives unless the corporation's interests were directly involved.

Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that established the right of unmarried people to possess contraception on the same basis as married couples.

Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a state could not limit pharmacists' right to provide information about prescription drug prices. This was an important case in determining the application of the First Amendment to commercial speech.

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), was a seminal First Amendment ruling at the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that radio broadcasters enjoyed free speech rights under the First Amendment, but those rights could be partially restricted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to maintain the public interest in equitable use of scarce broadcasting frequencies. As a result, the FCC's Fairness Doctrine was found to be constitutional.

In law, commercial speech is speech or writing on behalf of a business with the intent of earning revenue or a profit. It is economic in nature and usually attempts to persuade consumers to purchase the business's product or service. The Supreme Court of the United States defines commercial speech as speech that "proposes a commercial transaction".

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), was a Supreme Court case holding that the installation and use of a pen register by the police to obtain information on a suspect's telephone calls was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and hence no search warrant was required. In the majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun rejected the idea that the installation and use of a pen register constitutes a violation of the suspect's reasonable expectation of privacy since the telephone numbers would be available to and recorded by the phone company anyway.

Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the right of lawyers to advertise their services. In holding that lawyer advertising was commercial speech entitled to protection under the First Amendment, the Court upset the tradition against advertising by lawyers, rejecting it as an antiquated rule of etiquette.

44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a complete ban on the advertising of alcohol prices was unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and that the Twenty-first Amendment, empowering the states to regulate alcohol, did not lessen other constitutional restraints of state power.

Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Township of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States found that an ordinance prohibiting the posting of "for sale" and "sold" signs on real estate within the town violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protections for commercial speech.

Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico, 478 U.S. 328 (1986), was a 1986 appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States to determine whether Puerto Rico's Games of Chance Act of 1948 is in legal compliance with the United States Constitution, specifically as regards freedom of speech, equal protection and due process. In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Puerto Rico government (law) could restrict advertisement for casino gambling from being targeted to residents, even if the activity itself was legal and advertisement to tourists was permitted. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Puerto Rico Supreme Court conclusion, as construed by the Puerto Rico Superior Court, that the Act and regulations do not facially violate the First Amendment, nor did it violate the due process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that it was unconstitutional to prohibit anyone other than a licensed pharmacist to distribute nonprescription contraceptives to persons 16 years of age or over, to prohibit the distribution of nonprescription contraceptives by any adult to minors under 16 years of age, and to prohibit anyone, including licensed pharmacists, to advertise or display contraceptives.

Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with non-verbal free speech and its protections under the First Amendment. The Court, in a per curiam decision, ruled that a Washington state law that banned the display of the American flag adorned with additional decorations was unconstitutional as it violated protected speech. The case established the Spence test that has been used by the judicial system to determine when non-verbal speech may be sufficiently expressive for First Amendment protections.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (S. Ct., 1975).
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Greenhouse, Linda (2006). Becoming Justice Blackmun: Harry Blackmun's Supreme Court Journey. Times Books. pp. 116–119. ISBN   9780805080575.
  3. ↑ Va. Code Ann. § 18.1-63 (1960).
  4. ↑ Bigelow v. Virginia, 191 S.E. 2d 173 (Va. S. Ct., 1972).
  5. ↑ New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (S. Ct., 1964).
  6. ↑ Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (S. Ct., 1966).
  7. ↑ Newton, Sally H. (1976). "The Commercial Speech Doctrine: Bigelow v. Virginia". Urban Law Annual. 12: 225–236 – via HeinOnline.
  8. ↑ Merrill, Thomas W. (Fall 1976). "First Amendment Protection for Commercial Advertising: The New Constitutional Doctrine". University of Chicago Law Review. 44 (1): 236. doi:10.2307/1599265. JSTOR   1599265 – via HeinOnline.
  9. ↑ Gordon, Philip J. (Spring 1994). "Reasonable Fit Required between Interests and Means When Regulating Commercial Speech". Suffolk University Law Review. 28 (1): 185–188 – via HeinOnline.
  10. ↑ Summer, David B. (Fall 1976). "The Commercial Speech Doctrine and the Consumers' Right to Receive". Washburn Law Journal. 16 (1): 200 – via HeinOnline.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.