Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co.
514 U.S. 476, 131 L. Ed. 2d 532, 1995 U.S. LEXIS 2844 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A governmental regulation on commercial speech that prohibits the disclosure of truthful, non-misleading information violates the First Amendment if the regulation does not directly and materially advance the asserted governmental interest and is not narrowly tailored, particularly when the broader regulatory scheme is irrational and inconsistent.
Facts:
- The Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAAA) prohibits the disclosure of alcohol content on beer labels, unless required by state law.
- The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), the implementing agency, also promulgated regulations banning terms like 'strong' but permitting terms like 'low alcohol' on labels.
- The same FAAA that bans alcohol content on beer labels mandates its disclosure on labels for wines with over 14% alcohol and permits it for all distilled spirits.
- Federal regulations also restrict the disclosure of alcohol content in beer advertising, but only in states that independently prohibit such advertising, leaving brewers free to do so in most of the country.
- Coors Brewing Company, a beer producer, developed proposed labels that included the alcohol content of its beer.
- In 1987, Coors submitted its proposed labels to the BATF for approval.
- The BATF rejected Coors' application, citing the FAAA's ban on disclosing alcohol content on beer labels.
- The government's justification for the ban is to prevent 'strength wars,' where brewers might compete based on the potency of their beer, potentially increasing alcohol consumption and related social harms.
Procedural Posture:
- Coors Brewing Company sued the government in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, seeking a declaratory judgment that the federal ban on displaying alcohol content on beer labels and in advertising violated the First Amendment.
- The District Court granted the relief sought.
- On appeal by the government, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding the government's interest to be substantial but requiring more evidence on whether the ban directly advanced that interest.
- On remand, the District Court upheld the advertising ban but invalidated the labeling ban.
- The government appealed the invalidation of the labeling ban to the Tenth Circuit; Coors did not appeal the ruling on the advertising ban.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, concluding the government failed to show that the labeling ban advanced its asserted interest in a direct and material way.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
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 provision of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act that prohibits displaying alcohol content on beer labels violate the First Amendment's protection of commercial speech?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
Yes, the federal law violates the First Amendment. A restriction on truthful, non-misleading commercial speech is unconstitutional if it fails to directly advance the government's interest or is not narrowly tailored. Applying the four-part Central Hudson test, the Court found that while the government's interest in preventing 'strength wars' is substantial, the labeling ban fails the final two prongs. The regulation does not 'directly and materially' advance this interest because the overall regulatory scheme is irrational; it bans alcohol content on labels while allowing it in advertising in most states and requiring it for wine and spirits. This inconsistency undermines the law's purported goal. Furthermore, the ban is not narrowly tailored and is more extensive than necessary, as less speech-restrictive alternatives exist, such as directly limiting the alcohol content of beer or banning marketing that emphasizes strength.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
Yes, the statute is unconstitutional. The Court should not rely on the formulaic Central Hudson test, as the 'commercial speech doctrine' is unsuited for this case. The doctrine's purpose is to prevent misleading speech or protect consumers from incomplete information, neither of which applies here where the speech is truthful and factual. The government's asserted interest—keeping consumers uninformed for their own good—is paternalistic and 'anathema to the First Amendment.' The government may not achieve its policy goals through a policy of consumer ignorance at the expense of free speech when direct regulation, such as limiting the alcohol content of malt beverages, is a permissible alternative.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthened the 'direct advancement' and 'narrow tailoring' prongs of the Central Hudson test for commercial speech. It signals the Court's increasing skepticism of paternalistic government justifications for restricting truthful, non-misleading commercial speech. By invalidating the regulation based on the 'irrationality' of the overall statutory scheme, the case establishes that courts will look beyond the specific provision at issue to see if related laws and regulations are consistent with the government's stated purpose. This ruling makes it more difficult for the government to defend speech restrictions that are part of a contradictory or piecemeal regulatory framework.
