Is Promotion of Free Services "Commercial Speech" for First Amendment Purposes? – Reason
From today's decision by Judge William K. Session III (D. Vt.) in Nat'l Inst. of Family & Life Advocates v. Clark, which allows plaintiffs' challenge to a Vermont regulation to go forward (denying defendants' motion to dismiss):
Plaintiffs challenge [a] provision[] in Vermont Senate Bill No. 37 . [that] prohibits "unfair and deceptive" acts in commerce by LSPCs [limited services pregnancy centers], including dissemination of information to the public any "advertising about the services or proposed services performed at that center that is untrue or clearly designed to mislead the public." The subsection on legislative intent explains that "accurate information about the services that a limited-services pregnancy center performs is essential to enable individuals in this State to make informed decisions about their care."
The Advertising Provision does not explicitly define what it means for an advertisement to be misleading. However, the statement of findings and legislative intent states that some LSPCs "provide confusing and misleading information to pregnant individuals contemplating abortion by leading those individuals to believe that [the LSPCs] offer abortion services and unbiased counseling," and that some LSPCs have promoted "patently false or biased medical claims about abortion." Such misleading advertising is "of special concern to the State because of the time-sensitive and constitutionally protected nature of the decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy."
Defendants argue that the advertising provision only prohibits false and misleading commercial speech, which is not protected by the First Amendment, and accordingly ask the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. For the following reasons, that request is denied.
The threshold issue is whether the restricted speech is commercial in the first place. "The propriety of distinguishing commercial from noncommercial speech in evaluating a First Amendment claim derives from Supreme Court precedents affording the former only 'a limited measure of protection, commensurate with its subordinate position in the scale of First Amendment values.'" Commercial speech is generally defined as "speech that does no more than propose a commercial transaction." Courts have explained that this definition is a "starting point," and try to give effect to "a 'common-sense distinction between commercial speech and other varieties of speech."
The Supreme Court has focused on three factors in evaluating whether speech is commercial: whether the speech is an advertisement, whether it references a particular product, and whether there is an economic motivation underlying the speech. It has also counseled that commercial speech is "expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience."
Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the speech restricted by the advertising provision is not merely commercial. The first Bolger prong goes in favor of the State; the statute limits its purview to "advertising about the services or proposed services performed at the center." The advertising provision's narrow scopeapplying only to "advertising about the services or proposed services" at the LSPCmakes it seem like the statute targets only speech that is aimed at proposing a commercial transaction.
However, drawing all plausible inferences in favor of Plaintiffs, prongs two and three from Bolger both counsel against concluding that the LSPCs' speech is purely commercial, at least for purposes of the motion to dismiss. Several courts have concluded that medical clinics promote specific products. However, the Vermont statute does not regulate Plaintiffs' advertising with reference to a specific productrather, it focuses on which entities are advertising, and requires that all of their advertisements conform to certain standards. This seems to regulate LSPCs rather than a particular service that they provide.
Finally, it is not clear whether economic motive undergirds Plaintiffs' activitiesso for purposes of the motion to dismiss, the Court concludes that it does not. It is undisputed that Plaintiffs provide services free of cost, and it is difficult to categorize solicitations as "proposed transactions" when the target audience is not charged. As the Fourth Circuit explained, "[a] morally and religiously motivated offering of free services cannot be described as a bare 'commercial transaction.'" {This is an issue that requires additional factual development. The Court is mindful that LSPCs provide services that trade off with other services, arguably placing their solicitations in a commercial context.}
Consequently, although the advertising provision plainly regulates only advertising, the statute's regulation based on actor rather product combined with the LSPCs' ostensible lack of economic motivation for speech requires the preliminary conclusion that the regulated speech is not purely commercial.
Because Plaintiffs' regulated speech is not commercial, the advertising provision is subject to heightened scrutiny. Strict scrutiny permits speech restrictions only when the government proves that its restrictions "are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests."
The State submits that the advertising provision is "narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests." Specifically, it argues that the advertising provision serves to protect consumers "against unfair and deceptive business practices, including false advertising," and submits that the legislature specifically found that LSPCs frequently make false and misleading claims. This may be the case, but narrow tailoring is a factual question that is best evaluated with a more developed evidentiary record. The legislature's rationale for the law and the fit of the law to the relevant social problem are factual questions that the Court will address at later stages of litigation.
The State next argues that the provider regulation is a restriction on professional conduct that incidentally burdens speech and therefore receives "intermediate scrutiny or less." The Supreme Court considered this issue in a 2018 case involving these same plaintiffs. Nat'l Inst. of Fam. & Life Advocs. ("NIFLA") v. Becerra (2018). In NIFLA, the Court noted that while "professional speech" is not categorized as a type of speech entitled to reduced First Amendment protection, states have broader authority to regulate speech of professionals than non-professionals in two circumstances: first, when states require that professionals disclose "factual, noncontroversial information" in their commercial speech, and second, when states regulate professional conduct "even though that conduct incidentally involves speech." In support of this second point, the Court cited with approval prior decisions regulating professional conduct such as state rules limiting lawyers' communication with potential clients; state regulation of malpractice by professionals; and state requirements that doctors performing abortions must provide information "in a manner mandated by the State" about the risks of this medical treatment.
In concluding that states may regulate professional conduct that incidentally burdens speech, the NIFLA Court noted that while "drawing the line between speech and conduct can be difficult, this Court's precedents have long drawn it." It also noted that "[a]s with other kinds of speech, regulating the content of professionals' speech 'pose[s] the inherent risk that the Government seeks not to advance a legitimate regulatory goal, but to suppress unpopular ideas or information." This is especially true in the medical field, where "doctors help patients make deeply personal decisions, and their candor is crucial."
Post-NIFLA, several cases have upheld restrictions on professional conduct even when that conduct includes some speech. See, e.g., Del Castillo v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Health (11th Cir. 2022) (upholding a statute requiring a license to practice as a dietician or nutritionist even when the restrictions also covered "nutrition counseling"); Capital Assoc. Indus., Inc. v. Stein (4th Cir. 2019) (upholding a ban on the practice of law by non- lawyers). The central question here is whether the provider regulation governs speech or conduct.
The Court concludes that while the statute primarily regulates conduct, its burden on speech may be more than "incidental" for two reasons.
First, the provider regulation [a separate regulation discussed in more detail in the full opinion -EV] makes licensed providers responsible for the (non-professional) speech/conduct of others. The statute seeks to regulate the speech of non-professionalsunlicensed medical providersby treating them as professionals even when they would not otherwise be subject to state licensing regimes if they worked anywhere else. Importantly, the covered non-professional conduct includes speech: as Plaintiffs note, "health information" is defined to include "any oral or written information in any form that relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition of a client." Drawing all inferences in favor of the Plaintiffs, the provider regulation could make licensed providers responsible for any conversation between an unlicensed provider and a patient at an LSPC when that conversation at all relates to the health of the patient.
The specific issue is with the narrow category of individuals who are made accountable for non-licensed speech: licensed providers who work at LSPCs. This suggests content (and viewpoint) discrimination. The law does not make all licensed providers at pregnancy clinics responsible for ensuring that health care services, information, and counseling comply with Vermont law. Instead, it singles out LSPCs for that treatment, subjecting the conduct and speech of medical service providers with particular views to heightened burdens. This could trigger heightened scrutiny. See, e.g., Holder v. Humanitarian L. Project (2010) (stating that when a law governing conduct regulates a message, First Amendment principles apply).
The second problem with the provider regulation is that it restricts the conduct (and speech) of non-licensed individuals. In some ways, this is perfectly benign: licensing requirements only work if people without licenses are restricted from taking certain actions. In Capital Associated Industries, the relevant statutory scheme precluded corporations from practicing law without a license. But this rule was applied without reference to the type of law that was practiced. Here, on the other hand, non-licensed individuals are exempt from medical professional standards in two circumstances: (1) if they work at any clinic other than an LSPC; or (2) if they work at an LSPC that does not employ a licensed provider. This under-inclusivity raises questions about whether the provider regulation is actually a conduct regulation or a licensing scheme directed at restraining speech.
While the NIFLA Court concluded that legislatures may regulate professional conduct when that restriction incidentally burdens speech, the provider regulation makes professionals responsible for the expressive conduct of others. NIFLA does not address that issue. It also does not stand for the principle that the government may regulate non-professional speech under the pretense that it is regulating professional speech.
The court also had this to say about whether the law is content- or viewpoint-discriminatory:
The parties dispute whether either provision constitutes content or viewpoint discrimination. Content-based laws, which "target speech based on its communicative intent," are "presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling interests." Viewpoint discrimination is a particularly insidious form of content discrimination, taking place when the government targets "particular views taken by speakers on a subject." Even an apparently content-neutral regulation can be deemed content-based if "there is evidence that an impermissible purpose or justification" underpins it.
It is challenging to discern whether the instant laws are content-based or content-neutral. On the one hand, the advertising provision regulates LSPCs' advertisements without reference to the content of the advertisements. This makes it different from classic content-discrimination cases, in which the law allows or disallows speech based on the subject discussed. The advertising provision only considers whether the restriction is false or deceptive, which is a determination that canin a sensebe made without reference to the content contained in the advertisement because it focuses solely on the binary question of whether consumers would think the advertisement promotes a service or product that it does not.
On the other hand, evaluating whether an advertisement is false or deceptive clearly requires consideration of its content (what it offers) and whether it is a faithful and non-misleading representation of the services provided. Regardless, it is well-established that the government may enact "content-based restrictions on false or misleading commercial messages." This reinforces the importance of the (unresolved) threshold question: whether Plaintiffs' advertisements are commercial.
The State argues that the advertising provision is not viewpoint discriminatory because it simply closes a loophole. It states that Vermont's general consumer protection statute does not apply to LSPCs because they "usually provide their services for free." It therefore argues that the advertising provision was necessary to prevent LSPCs from engaging in deceptive advertising simply because they do not collect payment from clients. The Court is unwilling to credit this assertion at the motion todismiss phase, when it must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiffs. Additionally, that argument is insufficient to defeat Plaintiffs' viewpoint discrimination claim: it still does not explain why the advertising provision applies solely to LSPCs instead of all clinics that do not charge for their services, which are presumably equally un-restricted by the Vermont consumer protection statute.
As you can tell from the opinion, the court isn't definitively opining on whether the law is constitutional; there is more left to be litigated here. There's a lot more to the opinion, including a discussion of the regulation that imposes various other (non-advertising-related) obligations on licensed health care providers who work at LSPCs; you can read it all here.
Go here to see the original:
Is Promotion of Free Services "Commercial Speech" for First Amendment Purposes? - Reason
- Most Americans can name only one right protected by the First Amendment, Annenberg survey finds - The Daily Pennsylvanian - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- A Majority of Americans Cant Recall Most First Amendment Rights - The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- Can you list all the First Amendment rights? Only 7% of Americans can, poll finds - Miami Herald - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- Todays TikTok Appeal Pressure Tests The First Amendment - Forrester - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- Heres what to know about free speech protections outlined by the First Amendment - Fort Worth Star-Telegram - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- DC Circuit skeptical of TikToks First Amendment effort to stave off looming ban - Courthouse News Service - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- Can candidates lie & get away with it? See if First Amendment rules vary for GA elections - Columbus Ledger-Enquirer - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- McConnell On The Judicial Bureaucracy And The First Amendment - Remark | Remarks | THE NEWSROOM | Republican Leader - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- Mistreatment of Indian journalist in Texas may have violated First Amendment rights: NPC - Daily Excelsior - September 19th, 2024 [September 19th, 2024]
- University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Says Pro-Hamas Groups Threats Are Protected by First Amendment - Algemeiner - September 8th, 2024 [September 8th, 2024]
- State of the First Amendment Address to focus on free speech, free exercise and the establishment clause - UK College of Communication and Information - September 8th, 2024 [September 8th, 2024]
- Letter to the Editor: Defending our First Amendment rights - Daily Bulldog - September 8th, 2024 [September 8th, 2024]
- Opinion | Only the First Amendment Can Protect Students, Campuses and Speech - The New York Times - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- The Growing Threat of State Domestic Terrorism Laws to the First Amendment - Just Security - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- First Amendment or foreign interference? Jury to decide in federal trial of Uhuru members - WTSP.com - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- State of the First Amendment Address to focus on free speech, free exercise and the establishment clause - UKNow - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- Interpreting the First Amendment through an equality lens - University of Miami: News@theU - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- Andrew Walker: The importance of the First Amendment - WORLD News Group - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- Daily Herald opinion: Free speech and election politics: Chilling-sounding 'First Amendment Zones' pose a legitimate, not insurmountable, challenge... - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- Phil Donahue: The man who brought robust talk to TV an interview with Ken Paulson about the man and his legacy First Amendment News 438 - Foundation... - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- Private Universities That Reject First Amendment Principles Put Themselves At Legal Risk (Updated) - Reason - September 6th, 2024 [September 6th, 2024]
- Federal Judge Who Ruled Ald. Gardiner Violated First Amendment Admonishes Him for Approaching Her - WTTW News - September 2nd, 2024 [September 2nd, 2024]
- Law professors: Northwestern University must embrace the First Amendment standard of speech - Chicago Tribune - September 2nd, 2024 [September 2nd, 2024]
- Trump Says We Gotta Restrict the First Amendment - Rolling Stone - September 2nd, 2024 [September 2nd, 2024]
- Constitution Day speaker to discuss the First Amendment, 2024 Election - Fredonia.edu - September 2nd, 2024 [September 2nd, 2024]
- Does the First Amendment Protect A.I.? The Supreme Court May Soon Have Its Say. - Slate - September 2nd, 2024 [September 2nd, 2024]
- The First Amendment and practical implications of SEA 202 - Indiana Lawyer - September 2nd, 2024 [September 2nd, 2024]
- Arizona Woman Arrested for Exercising First Amendment Rights, Criticizing Public Official - Turning Point USA - September 2nd, 2024 [September 2nd, 2024]
- First Amendment / Second Amendment Lawyer Jobs in California - Reason - August 25th, 2024 [August 25th, 2024]
- Nashville mayor introduces legislation aimed at safety and protecting First Amendment rights - WSMV 4 - August 25th, 2024 [August 25th, 2024]
- A few reflections on the Benjamin Gitlow story as that landmark case nears its centennial anniversary First Amendment News 436 - Foundation for... - August 25th, 2024 [August 25th, 2024]
- 72 People Have Been Arrested Related to First Amendment Activities During the DNC, Including 3 Journalists - WTTW News - August 25th, 2024 [August 25th, 2024]
- 72 People Have Been Arrested Related to First Amendment Activities During the DNC, Including 3 Journalists WTTW (Chicago) - Wirepoints - August 25th, 2024 [August 25th, 2024]
- Europes outrageous attack on the First Amendment - Washington Examiner - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- Who's for the First Amendment and who's against - Martinsburg Journal - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- Catholic Charities asks Supreme Court to protect First Amendment rights in battle against the state - AOL - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- Five ways the First Amendment protects your speech and three ways it does not - ACLU of DC - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- Video Democrats can handle protests and protecting the First Amendment: Brandon Johnson - ABC News - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- University I-Team launched, tasked with supporting First Amendment rights - Daily Illini - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- TikTok fights the DOJ on the First Amendment, compares itself to these American news outlets - Fast Company - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- Whose Bible (and First Amendment) is it, anyway? | Opinion - NJ.com - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- Anti-abortion organizations claim N.Y. attorney general is violating First Amendment over info on treatment - Spectrum News - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- In Response to City-Promoted Religious Walk: First Amendment Activist Proposes 'Chicken Wings, Piatas, and a Satanic Rave' - Tamarac Talk - August 20th, 2024 [August 20th, 2024]
- A First Amendment fight for the future of the internet - The Boston Globe - July 14th, 2024 [July 14th, 2024]
- Pushing back against the state - WORLD News Group - July 14th, 2024 [July 14th, 2024]
- So to Speak Podcast Transcript: The First Amendment at the Supreme Court - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - July 14th, 2024 [July 14th, 2024]
- Ruling boosts social media free speech protections, some say - Roll Call - July 14th, 2024 [July 14th, 2024]
- Can the First Amendment Protect Americans From Government Censorship? - The New York Sun - July 14th, 2024 [July 14th, 2024]
- The aftermath of the Supreme Courts NetChoice ruling - The Verge - July 14th, 2024 [July 14th, 2024]
- Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling 'inconsistent' with First Amendment - ADF Media - June 25th, 2024 [June 25th, 2024]
- Gag orders and First Amendment rights - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - June 25th, 2024 [June 25th, 2024]
- Car shows, the First Amendment, and $30 - The Citizen.com - June 25th, 2024 [June 25th, 2024]
- ACLU lawsuit claims Rose Bud ordinance restricts First Amendment rights - KARK - June 25th, 2024 [June 25th, 2024]
- DOJ report on Phoenix PD contains guidance on First Amendment rights at protests - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - June 25th, 2024 [June 25th, 2024]
- Chicago Police Department Revises Plan to Handle Protests Around DNC After Reform Groups Object - WTTW News - June 25th, 2024 [June 25th, 2024]
- Opinion | Alito comments threaten the First Amendment - The Washington Post - The Washington Post - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Six West Virginia Schools Notified of First Amendment Violations in Student Handbooks - WV News - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Missouri AG joins 23 states to defend Trump's First Amendment rights - kttn - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Voting assistance covered by First Amendment, say plaintiffs in absentee ballot case Alabama Reflector - Alabama Reflector - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- ACLU Urges Six WV Schools to Review Student Policies Violating First Amendment - The 74 - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Do Anti-CRT Laws Violate the First Amendment? - Vanderbilt Law - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Book Review: The Indispensable Right, by Jonathan Turley - The New York Times - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Perspectives: Tale of two Cohens: promissory and profane - Minnesota Lawyer - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- SPJ urges Mississippi Supreme Court to overturn lower court order that threatens journalists' First Amendment rights - Society of Professional... - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Anti-Semitism and the First Amendment | | khq.com - KHQ Right Now - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Personal Reflections: First Amendment and Religious Freedom | Opinion and Editorials | Lewiston Tribune | lmtribune ... - Lewiston Morning Tribune - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Fort Worth City Reinforces First Amendment Rights with True Texas Project Event Reinstatement at Botanic Garden - Hoodline - June 20th, 2024 [June 20th, 2024]
- Supreme Court Clears Way for N.R.A. to Pursue First Amendment Challenge - The New York Times - May 31st, 2024 [May 31st, 2024]
- SCOTUS unanimously backs NRA on First Amendment ruling - JURIST - May 31st, 2024 [May 31st, 2024]
- Unanimous First Amendment Victory for the NRA (Represented by the ACLU) - Reason - May 31st, 2024 [May 31st, 2024]
- Supreme Court Says Government Bullying Can Violate the First Amendment - Goldwater Institute - May 31st, 2024 [May 31st, 2024]
- SCOTUS Unanimously Sides With NRA in First Amendment Case - The Reload - May 31st, 2024 [May 31st, 2024]
- Supreme Court unanimously sides with NRA in First Amendment dispute with New York official - Washington Times - May 31st, 2024 [May 31st, 2024]
- Why Justice Sotomayor just handed the NRA a big Supreme Court victory - Vox.com - May 31st, 2024 [May 31st, 2024]
- John Stockton Loses Case Over Regulation of COVID Speech - Sportico - May 31st, 2024 [May 31st, 2024]
- More on the New York Trump Case and the First Amendment - Reason - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- Campus encampment bans rarely violate the First Amendment. Here's why. - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- Trump's Trial and the First Amendment - Reason - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- Are gag orders constitutional? SCOTUS says it depends - VERIFYThis.com - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- Donald Trump Has a First Amendment Right to Pay Hush Money to Support his Electoral Ambitions - Reason - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]