Cause of Action Institute joined with the Cato Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute in filing an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to grant the petition for certiorari in CTIA v. City of Berkeley. The commercial speech case involves an ordinance in Berkeley, California requiring cell phone retailers to make the following statement to their customers:
The City of Berkeley requires that you be provided the following notice:
To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell phones meet radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines. If you carry or use your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation. Refer to the instructions in your phone or user manual for information about how to use your phone safely.[1]
The problem is that it is not entirely clear whether the harm described in this statement is actually true. The current First Amendment commercial speech doctrine allows governments to compel commercial speech that is both “purely factual” and “uncontroversial.”[2]
The standard of review by which courts determine whether a particular compelled commercial statement meets this requirement can be the deciding factor in a case. Take Berkeley, for example. In this case, the record in the district court did “not offer[] any evidence that carrying a cell phone in a pocket is in fact unsafe.”[3] That is, there is “no evidence in the record that the message conveyed by the ordinance is true.”[4]
Under any serious review of a governmental action impinging on a constitutional right—which compelled speech does—the absence of evidence to show that the government was indeed advancing a legitimate interest would be enough to strike down the ordinance. But not in Berkeley. The Ninth Circuit held that any “more than trivial” interest will suffice.[5] No attention was paid to whether that interest, however trivial, is actually a legitimate one or if the compelled speech is advancing it.
The Supreme Court must step in
The commercial-speech doctrine is notoriously muddy. Both Justice Thomas and Justice Ginsburg have recognized that the lower courts are in need of “guidance” on the “oft-recurring” and “important” subject of “state-mandated disclaimers.”[6] And this guidance is necessary, the Justices wrote, because the Court has not “sufficiently clarified the nature and the quality of the evidence a State must present to show that the challenged legislation directly advances the governmental interest.”[7]
This lack of clarity has given rise to governments at various levels forcing commercial speakers to communicate disputed and politically charged statements, sometimes where the underlying factual issues are not resolved. And lower courts are expanding government’s ability to commandeer commercial speaker’s message. This contravenes the Constitution’s command that “Congress shall make no law” against free speech (incorporated against the states by the 14th Amendment). This is precisely the type of behavior one would expect in a legal environment where the lines are not clear.
Commercial Speech Doctrine Must be Clear
The Supreme Court should grant the cert petition in Berkeley and ensure that moving forward when a government tries to compel commercial speech to carry the government’s message, the government must be able to, at a minimum, adduce evidence that (1) the purported harm actually exists, (2) mitigating that harm is a compelling government interest, (3) that the infringement on the speaker’s rights is narrowly tailored to advance that interest, and (4) that the compelled commercial speech actually does advance the interest. We will continue to see doctrinal confusion and unnecessary compelled commercial speech absent that clarity, which should be avoided.
James Valvo is Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor at Cause of Action Institute. You can follow him on Twitter @JamesValvo.
[1] Berkeley Municipal Code § 9.96.030(A).
[2] Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, 651 (1985).
[3] CTIA–The Wireless Ass’n v. City of Berkeley, California, 854 F.3d 1105, 1125 (9th Cir. 2017) (Friedland, J., dissenting in part).
[4] Id.
[5] Id. at 1117.
[6] Borgner v. Florida Bd. of Dentistry, 537 U.S. 1080 (2002) (Thomas, J., joined by Ginsburg, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).
[7] Id.
