Opinion ID: 1887901
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The advancement of the District's interest

Text: We have no doubt that the Act, even more than the Florida regulation at issue in Went For It, [12] substantially advances the legitimate state interest in protecting the privacy and tranquility of accident victims and their families. In Went For It, the Supreme Court upheld Florida's thirty-day prohibition on direct-mail solicitation of accident victimsa far more extensive restriction than that imposed by the Act. The Court relied on various kinds of evidence, including anecdotal reports, newspaper articles, and complaints from potential clients who had received unwanted solicitations. Id. at 626-27, 115 S.Ct. 2371. In this case, as in Went For It, the record includes articles in the media, as well as testimony from representatives of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia, the Trial Lawyers Association, and the United States Attorney's Office, regarding the mischief caused by uninvited in-person solicitation. It also contains reports from individuals describing the intrusion upon their privacy which resulted from the practices sought to be prohibited. Moreover, the Court stated in Went For It that we have permitted litigants to justify [commercial] speech restrictions by reference to studies and anecdotes pertaining to different locales altogether[.] Id. at 628, 115 S.Ct. 2371. Accordingly, Florida's experience and that of other jurisdictions may also be considered in assessing the constitutionality of the District's legislation. We are therefore satisfied that the legislative record regarding the effects of in-person solicitation conducted a short time after a motor vehicle accident readily satisfies the substantial interest prong of the Central Hudson standard.