Opinion ID: 161369
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The District Court's Central Hudson Analysis

Text: 14 The district court considered the four part Central Hudson test in detail in its Memorandum Decision Addressing Plaintiffs' Motion For Summary Judgment, which it incorporated by reference into its Memorandum Decision Addressing Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction. 15 With respect to the first part of the Central Hudson test, whether the regulated speech concerns lawful activity and is not misleading, the district court agreed with ULBA that a number of the challenged statutes regulated lawful, nonmisleading speech. It rejected Utah's argument that the majority of the statutes regulated conduct, not speech, and were thus constitutional. The court stated that, because [c]onsumption of alcoholic beverages involves lawful conduct, and [c]ommercial speech about lawful conduct is subject to First Amendment protection, Utah could not escape review of its legislation by asserting that the challenged conduct is unlawful under the very same legislation being reviewed. Aplt's App. at 268. 16 In the second part of the test, which requires the court to assess the substantiality of the government's interest, the district court found that the interests cited by Utah in support of its advertising restrictions were in fact substantial. The court identified these interests as the operation of a public business, with the goal of satisfying public demand for alcoholic beverages while protecting the public interest 'including the rights of citizens who do not wish to be involved with alcoholic products,' as well as the promotion of the public welfare, including concerns such as temperance, health, safety, consumer protection [and] protecting minors. Id. at 270 (citing Utah Code Ann. 32A-1-104(3) (1999)). The court rejected ULBA's argument that protecting non-drinkers from alcohol advertising could not be a substantial interest, stating that where operating a public business . . . involves alcoholic beverages it seems clear that a substantial interest is involved, even when a stated goal is to protect non-drinkers. Id. at 271. 17 The district court then turned to the third part of the test, inquiring whether the Utah laws directly advanced the interests identified by the state. The court noted statistics put forth by ULBA which supposedly demonstrated that the repeal of advertising restrictions would not lead to an increase in overall demand for alcohol. It then reviewed the evidence submitted by Utah, in the form of testimony and affidavits by various physicians and public health officials, who opined that the State's public welfare interest is real and materially advanced by the State's regulation of alcoholic beverage advertising. Id. at 273. The court concluded that there is sufficient evidence of record to place in dispute the issue of whether the State's asserted interests in restricting advertising of alcoholic beverages are directly and materially advanced by the challenged restrictions on advertising alcoholic beverages. Id. at 273-74. 18 Finally, the district court reached the fourth part of the Central Hudson test, whether the speech restriction is no more extensive than is necessary to serve the government interest. Id. at 274. It cited the Supreme Court's recent discussion in Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass'n, Inc., v. United States, 527 U.S. 173 (1999), where the Court stated that in the fourth part of the test, [t]he Government is not required to employ the least restrictive means conceivable, but it must demonstrate narrow tailoring of the challenged regulation to the asserted interesta fit that is not necessarily perfect, but reasonable. Aplt's App. at 274 (quoting Greater New Orleans, 527 U.S. at 188) (internal quotation marks omitted). 19 The district court determined that Utah had again succeeded in placing in dispute the issue of whether its statutes satisfied the fourth part of Central Hudson. Aplt's App. at 278. It stated that Utah's statutes fell short of being a total or blanket ban against dissemination of any information about alcoholic beverages, and that [l]ess burdensome alternative methods to advance the somewhat contradictory interests of the State do not readily come to mind. Id. at 276, 278. It described those contradictory interests as Utah's goals of operating its alcoholic beverage business using sound business practices to service public demand, while at the same time operating under the stricture that it not promote the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages. Id. at 278 n.8. 20