Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico

Last updated

Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 28, 1986
Decided July 1, 1986
Full case namePosadas de Puerto Rico Associates, dba Condado Holiday Inn v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico et al.
Citations478 U.S. 328 ( more )
106 S. Ct. 2968; 92 L. Ed. 2d 266
Holding
Puerto Rico's Games of Chance Act of 1948, as narrowed by the Puerto Rican Superior Court, was not facially unconstitutional because the population specific ban on commercial speech related to casino gambling cleared the Central Hudson standard.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
MajorityRehnquist, joined by Burger, White, Powell, O'Connor
DissentBrennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun
DissentStevens, joined by Marshall, Blackmun
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV

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. [1] 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. [1]

Contents

The controversial case has been subsequently referenced with respect to the legality of bans on tobacco advertising, liquor advertising and other advertisement related to gambling. It is regarded as a landmark case in illustrating the elasticity of the Central Hudson standards for regulating commercial speech, [2] as the Court did not request evidence or argument supporting the need of Puerto Rico to regulate such advertisement, but merely accepted that such regulations seemed reasonable. It also implicitly allowed for more strict regulations on commercial speech related to legal but presumably dangerous "vice" activities. Although there have been calls to overturn Posadas and it has been ignored as precedent in some, if not all, subsequent cases, the case has never been officially overruled.

Prior history

On 15 May 1948, Puerto Rico adopted Act No. 221, the Games of Chance Act, which allowed regulated casino gambling but disallowed advertisement of gambling establishments within the boundaries of Puerto Rico. In 1978, the Texas-based Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates, which hosted a gambling facility at the Condado Holiday Inn and Sands Casino, was fined twice by the Puerto Rico Tourism Company for such advertising. [3] In 1979, the Tourism Company sent a memo to casino operators further clarifying restrictions on advertising to include "the use of the word 'casino' in matchbooks, lighters, envelopes, inter-office and/or external correspondence, invoices, napkins, brochures, menus, elevators, glasses, plates, lobbies, banners, flyers, paper holders, pencils, telephone books, directories, bulletin boards or in any hotel dependency or object which may be accessible to the public in Puerto Rico." [3] Following this, it fined the company again several times.

In 1981, the company filed suit alleging generally that the Act violated Constitutional guarantees of free speech, equal protection and due process and specifically that the Tourism Company had violated the company's Constitutional rights in interpreting and applying it. [3] The Puerto Rican Superior Court which heard the case agreed that the advertising restrictions applied to the company had been unconstitutional, describing the Tourism Company's acts as "capricious, arbitrary, erroneous and unreasonable." [3] However, it "adopted a narrowing construction of the Act and regulations" which permitted local advertising if aimed at inviting tourists but not residents to partake. [3] Under that new construction, the Puerto Rican Supreme Court determined that the Act was not facially (always) unconstitutional.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico affirmed the lower court's decision. The company appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the federal question.

Case

The case was argued on April 28, 1986, with Maria Milagros Soto representing the appellant and Lino J. Saldana the appellees.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the American Association of Advertising Agencies, the American Broadcasting Companies, the AFL–CIO, the American Newspaper Publishers Association, the National Broadcasting Company, the Atlantic City Casinos Association and the Association of National Advertisers submitted amici curiae in favor of the appellant. [1]

Posadas argued that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution did not permit restrictions on commercial speech except when such speech failed to meet the four-part test established by the 1980 landmark case of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission . [2] The Central Hudson standards establish that, when the activity is legal and the advertising not misleading, the government must show substantial interest in the advertisement and substantial benefit from regulating it, as well as demonstrating that such regulations are not excessive to the need. [4] The Tourism Company rebutted that First Amendment does not protect local advertising of casinos and, even if it did, restriction on such advertisement met the Central Hudson standard as reasonable and necessary to secure substantial governmental interest. [1]

Decision

William Rehnquist wrote the Court's opinion. William Rehnquist.jpg
William Rehnquist wrote the Court's opinion.

The case was decided on July 1, 1986. With a 5–4 majority, the Supreme Court decided on behalf of the appellees, dismissing the facial challenge of the Act and the regulations that supported it, indicating that the Act, in its narrowed construction, was not inherently constitutionally invalid. Among the Justices supporting the majority view were Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., Sandra Day O'Connor, Byron White and William Rehnquist, who wrote the majority opinion. Dissenters included Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun, as well as William J. Brennan, Jr. and John Paul Stevens, who authored dissenting opinions. [1]

In voicing the majority view, Rehnquist stated that the government of Puerto Rico had a legitimate concern in limiting gambling among its residents to promote public well-being under the same logic used by many of the 50 United States in making gambling illegal. The substantial interest of the government thus affirmed, he indicated that advertising aimed at local residents would undoubtedly increase demand and that the limitations were not excessive because restriction was limited to casino gambling as opposed to all games of chance. [3]

In his dissent, Brennan indicated that the determination to make casino gambling legal in Puerto Rico was indication that Puerto Rico does not believe "serious harmful effects" result from gambling, that the appellees had not demonstrated that restricting such advertisement would reduce any civic "serious harmful effects" of gambling, or that restriction of free speech was the best or only method of reducing such harmful effects. [3] Justice Stevens, dissenting, concluded that, "The general proposition advanced by the majority today—that a State may prohibit the advertising of permitted conduct if it may prohibit the conduct altogether—bears little resemblance to the grotesquely flawed regulation of speech advanced by Puerto Rico in this case. ... The First Amendment surely does not permit Puerto Rico's frank discrimination among publications, audiences, and words." [3]

Implications

The case is regarded as a landmark in illustrating the elasticity of the Central Hudson standards for regulating commercial speech. [5] In 2003's Freedom of Commercial Expression, Roger Shiner points out that what was remarkable about the Posadas decision was the way in which the Court applied Central Hudson, not requesting any evidence that the restrictions were necessary to protect state interest in public wellbeing, but simply accepting that the assertion that it might be necessary and useful was reasonable. [6] Court of Appeals justice Richard Posner suggested in 2004's Frontiers of Legal Theory that to an economist, this view is not reasonable, even granting for the sake of argument that the state does have interest in imposing more rigorous restrictions on commercial speech. Posner notes that reducing advertising costs to casinos might lead to their reducing gambling costs, which may in turn increase gambling and any undesirable social effects. [7]

Posadas has been precedent in a number of subsequent cases on commercial speech due to its implicit recognition of a "vice" allowance for restrictions under which federal and state governments can regulate nonmisleading advertisement for substances and services that are legal, but might be subject to regulation for civic good. [8] [9] [10] It was the first in a series of permissive decisions regarding regulation of commercial speech, applying a more lax standard than the intermediate scrutiny recommended in Central Hudson. [11] [12] Specifically, the case has been brought up in considering other cases related to tobacco, alcohol and gambling. At the same time that the Court applied this more relaxed scrutiny to some commercial speech cases, it applied more rigorous scrutiny to others. [11]

Subsequent history

In 1987, the implications of the decision were raised when the American Bar Association was considering a proposal to support extending the ban on tobacco advertising to all media, even though the act of smoking was legal. [13] [14] In the courtroom, the case was cited as precedent in two 1990s Supreme Court cases testing alcohol-related laws: Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co. (1995) and 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996). According to attorney Bruce Ennis, Rubin "put the nail in the coffin of the Posadas decision" when the Court unanimously decided that it was unconstitutional to prohibit the display of alcoholic content on beer labels. [9] However, Posadas was not overturned then nor when it was raised during 44 Liquormart's successful challenge to a law banning publication of liquor prices in Rhode Island, even though Justices Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas all called for it to be overruled. [15] [16] Even though she did not call for overruling, Justice O'Connor—whose opinion was signed by Rehnquist, Stephen Breyer and David Souter—stated that the Court had properly ignored Posadas in determining subsequent cases. [15] Although Freedom of Commercial Speech posits this decision as a "rebounding" from the Posadas decision, it noted that 44 Liquormart nevertheless reaffirmed the Court's opinion that commercial speech was less deserving of constitutional protection than non-commercial speech. [17]

In 1999, it became precedent in another Supreme Court case involving gambling advertisement, Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Assn., Inc. v. United States , which challenged the Federal Communications Commission's right to restrict advertisement on games of chance with the justification that such restrictions would reduce gambling, given that advertisements for such games of chance as state lotteries and Native American gambling enterprises were allowed in all states and all gambling advertisement had been permitted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in nine. [16] At issue was whether the state of Louisiana could restrict the advertisement to its residents of legal private casinos. In its hearing of that case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed that the prohibition was constitutional based on Posadas, but the Supreme Court held rather that private casinos must be permitted to advertise to residents since gambling was legal in that state. [18] However, as of 2007, Posadas had still not been officially overturned. [19]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment limiting government restriction of civil rights

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws that regulate an establishment of religion, or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bookmaker</span> Organization or person that takes bets on sporting events

A bookmaker, bookie, or turf accountant is an organization or a person that accepts and pays out bets on sporting and other events at agreed-upon odds.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of speech in the United States</span> Overview of the human rights history in the North American country

In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws. Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government. The term "freedom of speech" embedded in the First Amendment encompasses the decision what to say as well as what not to say. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment and has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech. The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine, prevents only government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government. However, It can be restricted by time, place and manner in limited circumstances. Some laws may restrict the ability of private businesses and individuals from restricting the speech of others, such as employment laws that restrict employers' ability to prevent employees from disclosing their salary to coworkers or attempting to organize a labor union.

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), often referred to as the McCain–Feingold Act.

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.

Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991), was a case in the United States Supreme Court that upheld Department of Health and Human Services regulations prohibiting employees in federally funded family-planning facilities from counseling a patient on abortion. The department had removed all family planning programs that involving abortions. Physicians and clinics challenged this decision within the Supreme Court, arguing that the First Amendment was violated due to the implementation of this new policy. The Supreme Court, by a 5–4 verdict, allowed the regulation to go into effect, holding that the regulation was a reasonable interpretation of the Public Health Service Act, and that the First Amendment is not violated when the government merely chooses to "fund one activity to the exclusion of another."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gambling in the United States</span>

In the United States, gambling is subject to a variety of legal restrictions. In 2008, gambling activities generated gross revenues of $92.27 billion in the United States.

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.

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".

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 & Electric Corp. had challenged a Public Service Commission regulation that prohibited promotional advertising by electric utilities. Justice Brennan, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Stevens wrote separate concurring opinions, and the latter two were both joined by Justice Brennan. Justice Rehnquist dissented.

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued on June 9, 1980 which affirmed the decision of the California Supreme Court in a case that arose out of a free speech dispute between the Pruneyard Shopping Center in Campbell, California, and several local high school students.

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.

Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case that established First Amendment protection for advertising.

Lorillard v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001), was a 2001 case brought by Lorillard Tobacco Company when Massachusetts instituted a ban on tobacco ads and sales of tobacco within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds. Lorillard argued that this was an infringement on its First Amendment rights and that the regulation was more extensive than necessary. Applying the Central Hudson Test, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Massachusetts' ban on advertising and tobacco sales was overbroad. The Supreme Court also held that the Massachusetts regulation was preempted by federal law.

Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533 (2001), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the constitutionality of funding restrictions imposed by the United States Congress. At issue were restrictions on the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), a private, nonprofit corporation established by Congress. The restrictions prohibited LSC attorneys from representing clients attempting to amend existing welfare law. The case was brought by Carmen Velazquez, whose LSC-funded attorneys sought to challenge existing welfare provisions since they believed that it was the only way to get Velazquez financial relief.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States free speech exceptions</span> Categories of free speech not protected by the First Amendment

In the United States, some categories of speech are not protected by the First Amendment. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Constitution protects free speech while allowing limitations on certain categories of speech.

Peel v. Attorney Disciplinary Commission of Illinois, 496 US 91 (1990), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that Illinois' rule against attorneys advertising themselves as "certified" violated their freedom of speech under the First Amendment. The Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (IARDC) had found that Peel's letterhead, which stated that he was "Certified Civil Trial Specialist By the National Board of Trial Advocacy," had broken state professional rules, and the Illinois Supreme Court had adopted their recommendation of public sanction. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, saying the letterhead was truthful, and the First Amendment favored disclosure over concealing information.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico, 478 U.S. 328 (1986).
  2. 1 2 Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission , 447 U.S. 557 (1980).
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Posades de Puerto Rico Associates, dba Condado Holiday Inn v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico et al. 478 U.S. 328l 106 S. Ct 2968; 92 L. Ed. 2d 266 (1986).
  4. ↑ Brody, Steven G.; P. Cameron DeVore; Bruce E. H. Johnson; Practising Law Institute (2004). Advertising and commercial speech: a First Amendment guide (2 ed.). Practising Law Institute. p. §14–143. ISBN   1-4024-0451-4.
  5. ↑ Moore, Roy L.; Ronald T. Farrar; Erik Collins (1998). Advertising and public relations law . Routledge. p.  34. ISBN   0-8058-1679-8.
  6. ↑ Shiner, Roger A. (2003). Freedom of commercial expression. Oxford University Press. pp. 56–57. ISBN   0-19-826261-2.
  7. ↑ Posner, Richard A. (2004). Frontiers of Legal Theory. Harvard University Press. p. 76. ISBN   0-674-01360-3.
  8. ↑ Johnson, Bruce E.H. (October 8, 2007). "Justice Thomas and commercial speech". The First Amendment Center. Archived from the original on December 24, 2007. Retrieved June 1, 2009.
  9. 1 2 Hudson, David (September 25, 1998). "First Amendment triumphs mark attorney's Supreme Court record". The First Amendment Center. Archived from the original on November 30, 2008. Retrieved June 1, 2009.
  10. ↑ United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co. 509 U.S. 418 (1993) "As in Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Co. of P.R., the activity underlying the relevant advertising – gambling – implicates no constitutionally protected right; rather, it [falls into a category of "vice" activity that could be, and frequently has been, banned altogether."
  11. 1 2 Vaver, D (2006). Intellectual property rights: critical concepts in law. Taylor & Francis. p. 349. ISBN   0-415-33091-2.
  12. ↑ Shaman, Jeffrey M. (2001). Constitutional interpretation: illusion and reality. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 100. ISBN   0-313-31473-X.
  13. ↑ Shipp, E.R. (February 15, 1987). "Lawyers debating ban on tobacco advertising". The New York Times. Retrieved May 31, 2009.
  14. ↑ "Should cigarette ads be outlawed?". The New York Times. February 22, 1987. Retrieved May 31, 2009.
  15. 1 2 Greenhouse, Linda (May 14, 1996). "High Court says liquor price ads can't be banned". New York Times. Retrieved May 31, 2009.
  16. 1 2 Mauro, Tony (January 20, 1999). "High court to re-examine commercial speech with gambling-ads case". The First Amendment Center. Archived from the original on May 11, 2009. Retrieved June 1, 2009.
  17. ↑ Shiner, 59.
  18. ↑ Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Assn., Inc. v. United States 527 U.S. 173 (1999).
  19. ↑ Siegel, Paul (2007). Communication Law in America (2 ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. p. 409. ISBN   978-0-7425-5387-3.
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.