Friedman v. Rogers
1979 U.S. LEXIS 57, 440 U.S. 1, 59 L. Ed. 2d 100 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state may, consistent with the First Amendment, prohibit the use of trade names in a professional practice because the use of a trade name is a form of commercial speech that has a significant potential to be deceptive and mislead the public.
Facts:
- In Texas, optometrists were informally divided into two groups: "professional" optometrists and "commercial" optometrists who often practiced in large-scale retail operations.
- N. Jay Rogers, a proponent of commercial optometry, operated a large number of optometrical offices across Texas under the trade name "Texas State Optical" or "TSO".
- The Texas Legislature enacted the Texas Optometry Act, which included section 5.13(d), prohibiting the practice of optometry under an assumed name, trade name, or corporate name.
- The Act also mandated in section 2.02 that four of the six members of the regulatory Texas Optometry Board be members of the Texas Optometric Association (TOA), a professional organization.
- Rogers and other commercial optometrists were ineligible for membership in the TOA because their business practices, such as advertising and operating under trade names, conflicted with the TOA's Code of Ethics.
- The state legislature's concern about trade names was based on past experiences in Texas where they were used to create a false impression of competition, conceal changes in practicing optometrists, and mislead consumers about the provider of their care.
Procedural Posture:
- Rogers filed suit against the members of the Texas Optometry Board in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The Texas Optometric Association (TOA) intervened as a defendant, and the Texas Senior Citizens Association (TSCA) intervened as a plaintiff.
- A three-judge District Court was convened to hear the constitutional challenges.
- The District Court sustained the constitutionality of the Board composition requirement (§ 2.02).
- The District Court held that the prohibition on trade names (§ 5.13(d)) was unconstitutional under the First Amendment and enjoined its enforcement.
- Rogers and the TSCA appealed the ruling on the board composition, and the Board members and the TOA appealed the ruling on the trade name ban to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state law that prohibits the practice of optometry under a trade name violate the First Amendment's protection of commercial speech?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Powell
No, the state law does not violate the First Amendment's protection of commercial speech. While trade names are a form of commercial speech, they are distinct from the factual price advertising protected in cases like Virginia Pharmacy and Bates because they have no intrinsic meaning and can be easily manipulated to mislead the public. The state has a substantial and well-demonstrated interest in protecting consumers from such deceptive practices, such as a trade name remaining the same despite changes in the optometrists on staff. The prohibition is a constitutionally permissible regulation because it targets the form of the communication to prevent deception and does not prevent optometrists from conveying factual information about their services and prices through other forms of advertising.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Blackmun
Yes, the state law violates the First Amendment's protection of commercial speech. The Court overestimates the potential for deception and underestimates the value of trade names, which provide consumers with useful information about price, quality, and standardized services for a wholly legal form of business. The state's concerns about deception could be addressed through less restrictive means, such as requiring the practicing optometrist's name to be displayed alongside the trade name, rather than a complete ban. This absolute prohibition on truthful information is a highly paternalistic approach that prevents consumers from accessing valuable information and protecting their own interests.
Analysis:
This decision qualifies the broad protections for commercial speech established in Virginia Pharmacy and Bates. It creates a distinction between purely factual commercial speech (like price advertising) and other forms of commercial communication (like trade names) that may be more inherently susceptible to deception. The Court signaled that states have greater latitude to regulate or even prohibit commercial speech that has a high potential to mislead the public, even if the speech is not overtly false. This case reinforces the idea that commercial speech occupies a subordinate position within the First Amendment hierarchy and that the state's interest in preventing consumer deception is a powerful justification for regulation.
