Law Commons^™

Compelled Commercial Disclosures: Zauderer’S Application To Non-Misleading Commercial Speech, Alexis Mason

University of Miami Law Review

In 1980, the Supreme Court held that a prohibition on commercial speech is subject to intermediate scrutiny. Roughly five years later, in Zauderer, the Court provided guidance on specific instances in which the government may compel commercial speech. The Court held that a requirement that goods or services disclose “factual and uncontroversial” information is constitutional so long as the requirement is not unduly burdensome, and the requirement is “reasonably related to the State’s interest in preventing deception of consumers.” This holding applied a rational basis standard of review to compelled commercial speech aimed at curing deception of consumers.

Despite …

Fitting A Gun In A Circle–A How-To Guide: A Comprehensive Look At The Standard Of Review For Gun Regulations Under The Second Amendment, Beth Coplowitz

University of Miami Law Review

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court’s landmark Second Amendment case, the Court held that the right to bear arms is an individual right aimed at self-defense in the home. Two years later, McDonald v. City of Chicago extended this right to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. However, lower courts were left with little guidance on what level of scrutiny to apply to gun regulations. As a result, courts have applied various levels of scrutiny including intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny, a two-step inquiry that leads to either intermediate or strict scrutiny, and an undue burden standard. Of …

Shooting Blanks: The Supreme Court's Flawed Analysis In Mcdonald V. City Of Chicago, Emily Horowitz

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.