Opinion ID: 6560
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Which Test Applies?

Text: 17 Section 14-1(5)(B) of the ordinance is a content-based restriction on commercial advertising. 9 The forbidden content is stated expressly in the terms of the ordinance. Accordingly, until very recently it would have been clear that the appropriate test was the four-part intermediate scrutiny analysis laid out by the Supreme Court in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission. 10 More recent cases, however, have questioned the continued vitality of Central Hudson as it applies to content-based restrictions on commercial speech. Our resolution of this case renders it unnecessary to decide which standard applies, but we note the existence of the debate to inform counsel and future panels. 18 In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota, 11 the Supreme Court subjected a content-based restriction of fighting words to strict scrutiny. The strict scrutiny test requires a regulation of speech to be narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest. The Supreme Court in R.A.V. concluded that the municipal ordinance at issue failed the strict scrutiny test, and the Court struck the ordinance down. Because commercial speech traditionally has received greater First Amendment protection than fighting words, 12 some district courts have concluded that the strict scrutiny standard must apply to content-based restrictions of commercial speech as well. 13 Of course, it is undisputed that Central Hudson continues to govern content-neutral regulations of commercial speech. 14 19 Because we conclude that, on the record before us, Sec. 14-1(5)(B) does not survive the intermediate scrutiny of Central Hudson, we need not consider whether that test, rather than the strict scrutiny of R.A.V., must guide our inquiry. 15