Court Opinion

ID: 9454334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:43:27.094641+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:04.559773
License: Public Domain

SPOTTSWOOD W. ROBINSON, III, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part):
I concur in Parts II and III of Judge TAMM’S opinion, and in Judge McGOWAN’S opinion in toto, but with an acknowledgment of an important question in this case which our disposition leaves unresolved. The Commission’s complaint challenged advertisements of a book on grounds, inter alia, that they repeated “false, misleading and deceptive” ideas in the book Commissioner Elman’s penetrating dissent1 argues that a cease and desist order predicated upon such a theory impinges on rights of free speech. Our function, however, stops short of constitutional determinations not imperatively required,2 and our remand for the Commission’s consideration of other potentially dispositive issues removes this serious First Amendment problem from the proper scope of this review.

. 3 Trade Reg.Rep. ¶ 17,996, at 20,389 (FTC 1967).

. E. g., Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449, 451, 88 S.Ct. 1804, 10 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1963).