Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Board of Trustees of the State University of New York v. Fox

Supreme Court of the United States · 1989 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentCommercial Speechcommercial speechCentral Hudsonleast restrictive meansreasonable fitnarrow tailoring

Facts

SUNY adopted Resolution 66-156, which denied authorization to private commercial enterprises to operate on university campuses or in university facilities except for listed services and events. American Future Systems sold housewares to students through in-dormitory group demonstrations resembling "Tupperware parties," and a representative conducting one in a student's dorm room was told to leave and then arrested after refusing. Student respondents sued, claiming the resolution violated the First Amendment by prohibiting them from hosting and attending these demonstrations and from discussing matters with commercial invitees in their rooms. The university also construed the resolution to reach some invited for-profit speech that did not itself propose a commercial transaction, such as tutoring, job counseling, legal advice, and medical consultation in dorm rooms.

Issue

Does Central Hudson require that restrictions on commercial speech satisfy a least-restrictive-means standard, or is a less demanding standard sufficient? Also, where a regulation aimed at commercial activity reaches some noncommercial speech, how should the lower courts proceed on remand?

Rule

Under Central Hudson, a restriction on protected commercial speech need not be the least restrictive means of serving the government's substantial interests. The government must instead show a reasonable fit between its ends and the means chosen: the regulation must be narrowly tailored in the sense that its scope is proportionate to the interest served and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary, but it need not be the single best or least severe means.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A public college in Columbus, Ohio bars outside vendors from giving in-dorm sales presentations for kitchen gadgets, citing student safety, residential quiet, and prevention of commercial exploitation. Maya Singh hosts a presentation in her room and argues the rule is unconstitutional because the college could have used a sign-in requirement, curfew hours, and a permit system instead.

What must the college show under the governing commercial-speech standard?

Explanation. The majority held that Central Hudson’s fourth prong does not impose a least-restrictive-means test. For protected commercial speech, the government must affirmatively justify a reasonable fit between substantial ends and the means chosen. The regulation must be narrowly tailored in the sense that its scope is proportionate and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary, but it need not be the single best or least severe method.