Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 47.0

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

3 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

11.  In that case, the Court held that laws requiring the dis-
closure  of  factual  information  in  commercial  advertising
may  satisfy  the  First  Amendment  if  the  disclosures  are 
“reasonably  related”  to  the  Government’s  interest  in  pre-
venting consumer deception.  471 U. S., at 651.  Because the 
trade associations did not contest  Zauderer’s  applicability
before the Eleventh Circuit and both lower courts applied
its framework, I agree with the Court’s decision to rely upon 
Zauderer at this stage.  However, I think we should recon-
sider Zauderer and its progeny.  “I am skeptical of the prem-
ise  on  which  Zauderer  rests—that,  in  the  commercial-
speech context, the First Amendment interests implicated
by disclosure requirements are substantially weaker than
those at stake when speech is actually suppressed.”  Mila-
vetz,  Gallop  &  Milavetz,  P. A.  v.  United  States,  559  U. S. 
229, 255 (2010) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concur-
ring in judgment) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Second, the common-carrier doctrine should continue to 
guide  the  lower  courts’  examination  of  the  trade  associa-
tions’ claims on remand.  See post, at 18, and n. 17, 30 (opin-
ion of ALITO, J.).  “[O]ur legal system and its British prede-
cessor  have  long  subjected  certain  businesses,  known  as 
common carriers, to special regulations, including a general 
requirement  to  serve  all  comers.”    Biden  v.  Knight  First 
Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ., 593 U. S. ___, ___ 
(2021) (THOMAS, J., concurring in grant of certiorari) (slip 
op., at 3).  Moreover, “there is clear historical precedent for 
regulating transportation and communications networks in 
a  similar  manner  as  traditional  common  carriers”  given 
their many similarities.  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 5).  Though
they  reached  different  conclusions,  both  the  Fifth  Circuit
and the Eleventh Circuit appropriately strove to apply the
common-carrier doctrine in assessing the constitutionality
of H. B. 20 and S. B. 7072 respectively.  See 49 F. 4th 439, 
469–480  (CA5  2022);  NetChoice  v.  Attorney  Gen.,  Fla.,  34 
F. 4th 1196, 1219–1222 (CA11 2022).