Law Commons^™

Commercial Speech Protection As Consumer Protection, Felix T. Wu

Articles

The Supreme Court has long said that “the extension of First Amendment protection to commercial speech is justified principally by the value to consumers of the information such speech provides.” In other words, consumers—the recipients or listeners of commercial speech—are the ones the doctrine is meant to protect. In previous work, I explored the implications of taking this view seriously in three contexts: compelled speech, speech among commercial entities, and unwanted marketing. In each of those contexts, adopting a listener-oriented approach leads to the conclusion that many forms of commercial speech regulation should receive far less First Amendment scrutiny than …

Comparing Wayfair And Wynne: Lessons For The Future Of The Dormant Commerce Clause, Edward A. Zelinsky

Articles

A comparison of South Dakota v. Wayfair with Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne indicates that the prospect of the Supreme Court jettisoning the dormant Commerce Clause altogether is unlikely. However, the justices who would abandon the dormant Commerce Clause can exercise decisive influence in particular cases as they did in Wayfair. The current Court’s dormant Commerce Clause skeptics – Justices Thomas and Gorsuch –provided the crucial fourth and fifth votes in Wayfair to overturn Quill.

It will continue to be rare for the Court to reverse its own dormant Commerce Clause decisions. Far from opening …