Document: 539 U.S. 654 NIKE, INC., ET AL.v.KASKY. No. 02-575. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 23, 2003. Decided June 26, Certiorari dismissed. Reported below: 27 Cal. 4th 939, 45 P. 3d 243. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA Laurence H. Tribe argued the cause for petitioners. With him on briefs were Thomas C. Goldstein, Amy Howe, Walter Dellinger, David J. Brown, and James N. Penrod. Solicitor General Olson States as amicus curiae urging reversal. brief Assistant Attorney McCallum, Deputy Clement, Jeffrey Minear, A. Lamken. Paul R. Hoeber respondent. Alan M. Caplan, Roderick Bushnell, Patrick Coughlin, Randi Dawn Bandman, Albert Meyerhoff, Sylvia Sum.* PER CURIAM. 1 The writ certiorari is dismissed improvidently granted. Notes: * Briefs ofamici reversal filed ABC Inc. et al. by Bruce E. Johnson, Cameron DeVore, Kelli L. Sager, Henry S. Hoberman, Theresa Chmara, Richard Schmidt, Jr., Schulz, Rich, Jonathan Bloom, Susanna Lowy, Anthony Bongiorno, Harold W. Fuson, Donnellan, Stuart D. Karle, Barbara Wall, Jack Goodman, Lichtman, Neal Jackson, George Freeman, René Milam, Z. Horbaczewski, Lucy Dalglish, Jane Kirtley, Sanford, Robin Bierstedt, Karlene Goller, Eric Lieberman; American Civil Liberties Union Mark Lopez, Steven Shapiro, Ann Brick; Federation Labor Congress Industrial Organizations Hiatt, B. Coppess, Gold; Arthur Page Society Keller Michael Potenza; Association National Advertising, Inc., Howard Rubin Cory Greenberg; Business Roundtable Carter G. Phillips, Charles Raul, Joseph Guerra; Center Individual Freedom Erik Jaffe Renee Giachino; Advancement Capitalism Bowden; Chamber Commerce America Kenneth Starr, Cordray, Conrad; Justice California Fred Hiestand; Defenders Property Rights Nancie Marzulla Roger Marzulla; ExxonMobil Remes; Manufacturers Andrew Frey, Schapiro, Geller, Gossett, Martin Redish, Jan Amundson, Quentin Riegel; Pacific Legal Foundation Deborah La Fetra; Pfizer Bert Rein, Kindler, Kany; Product Liability Advisory Council, Brody; SRiMedia Clarke, Jr.; Jefferson Protection Free Expression Robert O'Neil Joshua Wheeler; Washington Daniel Popeo Samp. amici affirmance State Bill Lockyer, California, Manuel Medeiros, General, Frank, Chief Herschel T. Elkins, Senior Ronald Reiter, Supervising Attorneys their respective jurisdictions follows: Gregg Renkes Alaska, Terry Goddard Arizona, Blumenthal Connecticut, Crist, Florida, Lisa Madigan Illinois, Ieyoub Louisiana, Rowe Maine, Curran, Maryland, Mike Hatch Minnesota, Patricia Madrid New Mexico, Eliot Spitzer York, Wayne Stenehjem North Dakota, Jim Petro Ohio, Drew Edmondson Oklahoma, Anabelle Rodríguez Puerto Rico, Lawrence Long South William Sorrell Vermont, Darrell V. McGraw, West Virginia; Campaign Trevor Potter; Consumer Sharon Arkin; Domini Social Investments LLC Pfander; Global Exchange Aceves; Advocates Bramson; Public Citizen Morrison, Allison Zieve, Scott Nelson, Vladeck; ReclaimDemocracy.org Brenda Wright, Danetz, John Bonifaz, Bonita Tenneriello; Sierra Club Gallagher McGarity; Representative Dennis Kucinich Erwin Chemerinsky Catherine Fisk. Perry Pendley F. Becker a Mountain curiae. JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom GINSBURG joins, SOUTER joins to Part III, concurring. Beginning in 1996, Nike was besieged series allegations that it mistreating underpaying workers at foreign facilities. See App. Pet. Cert. 3a. responded these charges numerous ways, such sending out press releases, writing letters editors various newspapers around country, mailing university presidents athletic directors. id., 3a-4a. In addition, 1997, commissioned report former Ambassador Nations Young labor conditions production 67a. After visiting 12 factories, "Young issued commented favorably working factories found no evidence widespread abuse or mistreatment workers." Ibid. 1998, respondent Marc Kasky, resident, sued unfair deceptive practices under California's Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. Code Ann. § 17200 seq. (West 1997), False Advertising 17500 Respondent asserted "in order maintain and/or increase its sales," made number "false statements material omissions fact" concerning which products are manufactured. Lodging Petitioners 2 (¶ 1). alleged "no harm damages whatsoever regarding himself individually," 4-5 8), but rather brought suit "on behalf information belief," 3 3). demurrer complaint, contending respondent's absolutely barred First Amendment. trial court sustained without leave amend entered judgment dismissal. 80a-81a. appealed, Appeal affirmed, holding Nike's "form[ed] part public dialogue matter concern within core area expression protected Amendment." Id., 79a. also rejected argument error deny amend, reasoning there reasonable possibility" complaint could be amended allege facts would justify any restrictions what — court's view "noncommercial speech." On appeal, reversed remanded further proceedings. held "[b]ecause messages question directed commercial speaker audience, because they representations fact about speaker's own business operations purpose promoting sales products, . [the] 946, 243, 247 (2002). However, emphasized "is still preliminary stage, whether false disputed issue has yet resolved." We granted decide two questions: (1) corporation participating debate may "be subjected liability factual inaccuracies theory `commercial speech' might affect consumers' opinions good corporate citizen thereby purchasing decisions"; (2) even assuming properly characterized speech, "First Amendment, applied states through Fourteenth permit[s] subjecting speakers legal regime approved decision below." i. Today, however, dismisses my judgment, Court's dismiss supported three independently sufficient reasons: not final meaning 28 U. 1257; neither party standing invoke jurisdiction federal court; (3) reasons avoiding premature adjudication novel constitutional questions apply special force this case. first jurisdictional problem case revolves never judgment. appellate respect state litigation only after highest had rendered decree. Seeibid. A literal interpretation statute preclude our review whenever proceedings remain determined court, how dissociated from issue" Radio Station WOW, v. 326 120, 124 (1945). have, abjured "mechanical" construction statute, accepted certain exceptional "situations finally present particular case, lower courts come." Cox Broadcasting Corp. Cohn, 420 469, 477 (1975).1 argues fits fourth category cases identified Cox, covers those "the been decided pending seeking review" prevail nonfederal grounds, "reversal preclusive relevant action," "refusal immediately state-court seriously erode policy." 482-483. each placed have resolved agreed disagreed disposition issue. Thus, Construction Laborers Curry, 371 542 (1963), Relations Board exclusive over controversy; Mercantile Nat. Bank Dallas Langdeau, 555 venue immunize defendants action; Miami Herald Publishing Co. Tornillo, 418 241 (1974), Florida requiring newspaper carry candidate's reply an editorial constitutional. itself, prohibit news media publishing name rape victim. none resolution affected view, if holds speech noncommercial, then action." S., 482-483; see Reply Brief 4; Opposition 4-5. Notably, assumes all either noncommercial therefore can neatly classified privileged not. Theoretically, correct we hold allegedly sort "malice" defined York Times Sullivan, 376 254 (1964), precluding amendments overcome Amendment defense. given interlocutory posture before us today, take other paths courts, nor resolve For example, affirm, almost certainly continue some, all, challenged constrains remedy imposed. Or, reverse, subject actual malice, inviting his malice. Tr. Oral Arg. 42-43. Or conclude some standards govern including malice must proved. short, opinion merits one different paths, clear action [in] Nor reaching claims now serve goal judicial efficiency. For, issues presented more well making piecemeal Federal likely. Flynt 451 619, 621 (1981) (per curiam) (noting most, falling four exceptions, probability issues"). Accordingly, does fall exception cannot regarded final. II second reason why, lacks hear courts. Whitmore Arkansas, 495 149, 154-155 (1990) ("Article course, gives `cases controversies,' doctrine serves identify disputes appropriately process"). Without alleging he personal stake outcome proceeding private attorney general enforce statutes California. He claim; attempted do so, failed injury "distinct palpable." Warth Seldin, 422 490, 501 (1975). Article III standing. reason, rules justiciability "dismissed outset." ASARCO Kadish, 490 605, 617 (1989).2 Even though commence based relying contends bring Court. 5. ASARCO, group taxpayers declaration State's law mineral leases lands invalid. Arizona "granted plaintiffs declaratory governing invalid," 611,3 sought noted "resulted altering tangible rights," adopted following rationale: "When where original sue principles exercise causes direct, specific, concrete parties who petition review, requisites controversy met." 623-624. rationale supporting extend quite Unlike ended invalidating law, "final rights" instant 619. Rather, merely survive allow go forward. To effect drastic expansion ASARCO's reasoning, extending cover ruling allows proceed.4 Because I believe significant warranted, requisite jurisdiction. third why centers importance difficult raised As Brandeis famously observed, developed, "for governance confessedly jurisdiction, avoided passing upon large pressed decision." Ashwander TVA, 297 288, 346 (1936) (concurring opinion). will anticipate advance necessity deciding it. 346-347. novelty provide adhering rule. This presents represents blending importance.5 post, 676-678. hand, true, direct communications customers potential intended generate possibly enhance market value stock contained misstatements. regulatory interest protecting participants being misled misstatements order. That broadly (perhaps overbroadly) stated "there fact." Gertz Welch, 323, 340 (1974). ongoing discussion important concerned practices, similar used multinational corporations. Amicus Curiae 2. Knowledgeable persons should free participate fear reprisal. chilling prospect expensive great importance. See, e. g., Amici 2; 11-12. provided broad protection figures animated (1964). Whether presume knows truth lies, litigation. answer questions, likely result study full record than mere unproven pleading. Indeed, development actually contribute positive way debate. events, am firmly convinced wisely address stage concur recognized inCox situations, "additional anticipated require later date." 477. constraints seeASARCO, 617, adjudicate determine relief appropriate. Seeid., 611. while leaving open remand, 612 (holding adjudicated remaining give rise question). 4 BREYER extendASARCO provides normal requirement encompass defendant's challenge adverse motion semi-commercial misleading. 668-670 (dissenting Regardless "speech-chilling injury" associated defense outweigh benefit having forum defendant establish contested statements, unprecedented surely change character doctrine, greatly reach. 5 Further complicating seeks constitutionality provisions Law Law. It apparently did raise specific below. scope afforded differ depending enforcement action, seepost, 678, KENNEDY, dissenting. dissent dismissing BREYER, O'CONNOR During 1990's, human rights groups, writers, others severely criticized involvement disreputable abroad. 7-8, 96-118, 127-162, 232-235, 272-273. focuses whether, extent, protects efforts respond took form written explained denied many made. arises authorize individual, acting "private general," effectively prosecute competition advertising. §§ 17200, 17204, 17500, 17535 1997). respondent, claimed misleading statements. And bases claim nine documents, releases editor newspaper, institutional customers, representatives nongovernmental organizations. affirmed dismissal Kasky's ground discloses addressed topic responding criticism practices." 78a. added saw merit [Kasky's] scattershot able allowing content-related abridgement Kasky appealed focused nature issue, pointing language stating offering truthful protect Central Hudson Gas Elec. Serv. Comm'n Y., 447 557, 563 (1980). courts' denial complaint. conceded that, fell outside "commercial speech," them ultimate favor." Appellant's Merits S087859 (Cal.), p. 1; accord, pp. 1-2. falls Consequently, concluded, insofar regardless whatever role played 969, 247, 262 Hence, according Court, bar lawsuit alleges advertising related (which, ease exposition, shall henceforth use words advertising" describe). basic here legally correct. Does permit "prosecution" forward? receiving 34 (including 31 briefs) hearing oral argument, certiorari, refusing presented, least now. directly freedom Americans speak matters debate, rule prevents now, delay itself inhibit constitutionally significantly easier on. Under circumstances, failure entails "an inexcusable benefits [of appeal] grant." Mills Alabama, 384 214, 217 (1966). similarly wrong here. initially intended. III's "case controversy" requires litigant "standing" —i. e., show suffered "injury fact," "fairly traceable" actions opposing party, favorable redress harm. Bennett Spear, 520 154, 162 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). plaintiff indeed trouble meeting requirements, specifically personally. 8). But Nike, complain actions. These threaten enforcing threatens discourage speech. often works complete indeed, future threat. Houston Hill, 482 451, 459, n. 7 (1987) (standing "`a genuine threat enforcement'" against speech); Steffel Thompson, 415 452, 459 (1974) (same). Cf. Boston Bellotti, 435 765, 785, 21 (1978) (The "burden expense litigating [an] "unduly impinge right"); Rosenbloom Metromedia, 403 29, 52-53 (1971) (plurality opinion) ("The very possibility engage litigation, protracted process, enough"). civil like criminal chill 254, 278 (1964) ("Plainly Alabama libel `a regulation creates hazards freedoms markedly greater attend reliance law'"). Here, laws kinds amounts just genuine, reality discourages engaging Supra, 667. Further, "traceable" pursuit lawsuit. decision, "redress" injury. Since problems make critical difference? 618 (1989), specified obtained lacked court. Virginia Hicks, ante, 120-121. (who ordinarily lack "standing") agency declaring leasing procedures violated law. 610. leaseholders intervened defendants. asked seek wrote: [1] [2] 623-624 (bracketed numbers added). No denies "requisites met "direct, injury"? "injury" consisted threat, arising determination, defendants' canceled (if, say, showed "made `true value'"). 611-612, 618. Here consists "chilled" restrained future. supra, 668. Where meaningful concede determination "final" sense unambiguously ordered 611-612 (finding exceptions finality requirements applied), here, sought, takes intrinsically holding, 662, (Stevens, J., concurring). "standing," possible difference circumstance make? leasehold procedures; constituted speech" which, when misleading," government "may entirely prohibit," 4th, 3d, 247. answering threshold question, left other, proceedings, 611-612. same. taken place new lawsuit; same little bearing likelihood speech-chilling occur immediately, think flow fortiori. limits "[f]inal judgments decrees had." 1257(a) (emphasis us, technically interim decree" purposes statute. interpreted statute's phrase judgment" refer, occurs midst doing said "pragmatic approach," approach, "determining finality." 477, 486 set forth several criteria permitting consideration determining known Cox's "fourth category" exception." They consist following: courts"; thus rendering unnecessary Court"; controlling of, admissibility in, come"; (4) "a refusal Each satisfied Viewed fromCox's "pragmatic" perspective, courts." 482, 486. considered instances says claims. include letter Director Sports Marketing directors presenting "facts" practices; 30-page illustrated pamphlet release (posted Web site) commenting posting site "code conduct"; (5) document letterhead sharing "perspective" (6) "[s]weatshop [a]llegations"; (7) Practices Executive Officer YWCA America, discussing criticisms (8) European relations manager representative International Restructuring Education Network Europe, (9) taking columnist's practices. Ibid.; 121-125, 182-191, 198-230, 270, 285, 322-324. consequently "governmen[t] prohibit" ifit misleading." "finally decided" attack According nothing remains question. If stand, simply misleading, perhaps negligent involving issuemight arise remand trial. always particularly where, past cases, reviews decisions regarding, requests temporary injunction stay (as here) Socialist Party Skokie, 432 43 (1977) (denial appeal); Organization Better Austin Keefe, 402 (temporary injunction); 214 (1966) (motion dismiss). Some itself. plaintiff, father victim, asserting right forbade publication victim's name. believing imposed strict summary favor 231 Ga. 60, 64, 200 2d 127, 131 (1973), rev'd, 469 part. consistent Ga., 2d, 131. standard liability. Rather liability, standard, suggested, "wilful disregard men find invasion highly offensive." relation between, instance, privacy invasion, mind, seem far higher Despite likelihood, "plainly final." 485. "final." B condition specifies "party here" "might grounds." 482. shows otherwise "unfair" constitute non-federal ground. "prevail grounds," satisfied. C issue... Taken literally, An outright reinstate intermediate amend. 665-666. forbid proceed state-law focus documents previously discussed. rest documents. reverse outright. middle ground, affirming fully reversing, permits continue. Seeante, 659-660 relevant? "reversal" "further litigation." significance point prior cases. despite chosen perhaps, (for name) negligence, producing erroneous, permitted Appellants O. 1973, 73-938, 68, 127 (arguing "`summary merits, proper vehicle affording protection'"). Similarly Constitution circumstances potentially applied. Appellant 73-797, 26-27, 60 conclusion, unsupported evidence, control mass become substantially concentrated). One imagine possibilities virtually every satisfied, technical statutory venue, cf. 659 Conceivably, argue compliance, 674 page, pragmatic realistic possibility. proposition so. probabilities precisely contrary, true understand reach reader recall review. communications, exemplified rests aspect speech; hence, extent unprotected. 666. added, "`embraces liberty discuss publicly truthfully concern.'" Consolidated Edison Y. 530, 534 (1980); Hudson, 562-563, contexts needs "`breathing space'" incorporating survive. Times, 272; also, (1974); Time, 385 374, 388-389 (1967). reconcile conflicting principles. favors application last mentioned public-speech principle, commercial-speech principle. heightened scrutiny regulations scrutiny. First, purely nature. better mixture (public-issue-oriented) elements. warrant characteristics. Appendix, infra (reproducing pages 190 191 Petitioners). implicitly found, speaker" (Nike), audience" (potential buyers contractees), makes "representations operations" (labor conditions). Bolger Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 66-67 (1983). critically and, believe, predominant characteristics "inextricably intertwined." Riley Blind C., 487 781, 796 (1988). thing, appears traditional format, television advertisement. propose presentation sale product transaction, Foods, 533 405, 409 (2001) (describing "usua[l]" definition speech). suggests contents "information useful discussions" faculty students. 190. face, convey diverse audience," individuals curiosity about, in," surrounding Bigelow Virginia, 421 809, 822 another letter's content context, concerns active controversy, describes detail. particular, responds so themselves play existing advocated, opposed, collective action. 143 (article student protests), 232-236 (fact sheet "Boycott Nike" heading). generally Roth States, 354 476, 484 (1957) Amendment's protections "fashioned assure unfettered interchange ideas bringing political social changes"). protection, facts, sometimes alone, sway views policy. distinguish described (commercial "usually transaction" added)); Trustees Univ. Fox, 492 473-474 (1989) test"); 561 "expression solely economic interests added)). unlike "dolphinsafe tuna" commonly labeling contexts. communication's contribution peripheral, central, At time, differs attorneys authorized impose respect, context most regulation. securities balance calls applications Ohralik Ohio Bar Assn., 436 447, 456-457 (1978). sets together content, treating differently purer forms simple advertisements, reviewed past. And, present, demands Second, doubt instance (through general) scrutiny, "fit" between burden imposes governmental "`interest served,'" 480. disproportionate. system provision furthers legitimate, traditional, objectives. helps honest marketplace. marketplace allocate goods services. SeeVirginia Bd. Pharmacy Citizens 425 748, 765 (1976). citizens "intelligent [the marketplace] ought regulated altered." State, injury, serious extended type provides, 1997) (establishing regimes negligence); Cortez Purolator Air Filtration Co., 23 163, 181, 999 706, 717 (2000) (stating liability). delegation authority authorizes ideological opponent telling truth, into courtroom kind battle waged forums. hard fought, hostile crowd freely prosecutions designed vindicate beliefs, unencumbered practical checks tend keep energies agencies Forsyth County Nationalist Movement, 505 123, 134-135 (1992); Bantam Books, 372 58, 67-71 (1963). means care considerably opponents speaking matters. organization's unqualified adequacy conditions, lead enough exist qualification unknown (but known) speaker. Uncertainty these, easily negligence fault. Gertz, 340; 389. least, create suffers handicap Bank, 785-786; Rosenberger Rector Visitors Va., 515 819, 828 (1995). "core" entwined with, toward, Government regulates absence suits. 15 41 tell, government's unique, 42. suffer impediment limited less public-debate-oriented elements predominate. historical treatment shows, substantial coexist room Compare, NLRB Gissel Packing 395 575, 616-620 (1969) (upholding prohibition employer comments unionism containing threats promises), Collins, 323 516, 531-532 (1945); Thornhill 310 88, 102 (1940). convince me likely, probable, applies; disproportionately burdens forbids Returning procedural prove "preclusive 482-483, literally consider pragmatically, D 483. "seriously erode" policy "chill" rights. 486; Fort Indiana, 489 46, 56 (1989). Continuation increased expense, loses, results monetary "restitution") injunctive corrective "counterspeech"). Cel-Tech Communications, Los Angeles Cellular Telephone 20 179, 973 527, (1999); Consumers Alta-Dena Certified Dairy, 963, 971-972, 6 Rptr. 193, 197-198 (1992). range broad; includes Times. upshot hesitate lawsuits (warning overly stringent "lead intolerable self-censorship"); 389 ("Fear verdicts damage suits innocent misstatement, involved defense, inevitably publishers `steer wider unlawful zone'"). theoretical. contradiction "to restrict consumers, national international media." 39. adds released annual Corporate Responsibility Report, pursue listing Dow Jones Sustainability Index, refused "dozens invitations responsibility issues." Numerous amici—including accurately practices—argue limit supply available those, journalists, informed issues. 2-3; 10-12; 6-13; 10-14. sum, 671. term 1257(a), There strong prudential presented. Compare 663-664 (STEVENS, concurring), 346-348 (Brandeis, easy ones, implicate both arrive asking general's forward basis pleadings hand. vigorously decided, Yee Escondido, 503 519, 534-535 seems unlikely later. waiting extracts heavy price. goes forward, speakers, caution excess caution, censor beyond demand. 389; 340. "chilling effect" means. IV postponing stake, position amicus—opposed practice claim—echoes famous sentiment reflected writings Voltaire: `I agree you fight end say it.' 3. implicates principle decide. respectfully contrary determination. NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

Category: 8