Court Opinion

ID: 9486928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:04:19.163483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:01.101819
License: Public Domain

ALTIMARI, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the nonsolicitation regulation at issue is an impermissible restriction on commercial speech under the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent.
The majority’s conclusion is essentially based on its belief that the evidence presented by the Secretary was insufficient to establish a constitutional fit between the government’s interest in preventing blockbusting, and the means chosen to further that interest. In arriving at this conclusion, the majority differs from the district court in the weight it accords the Secretary’s evidence of blockbusting. I feel this difference is due to the majority’s failure to truly credit the difficulties of finding direct evidence of this invidious practice. For this reason, and for the reasons so clearly and eloquently stated by Judge Spatt, I would affirm the judgment of the district court.