Briefs Authored by Public Good

For more information about a case, click on the case description below.

• Does California’s “ability to benefit” law, protecting students from being tricked into going into debt to pay for useless vocational training, violate the schools’ and prospective students’ First Amendment rights to academic freedom?
  • Pacific Coast Horseshoeing School, Inc. v. Grafilo (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit)
• The First Amendment free speech rights of e-cigarette manufacturers are not violated by a requirement that claims of reduced harm must be proven before they are advertised to the public, nor by a ban on free samples.
  • Nicopure Labs, LLC v. FDA (U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit)
• In a 5-4 party-line decision, the Supreme Court holds that the First Amendment rights of “pro-life” pregnancy centers are violated by California’s disclosure requirements.
  • Nat’l Ass’n of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (U.S. Supreme Court)
• Did FTC interpretation that federal prohibition on telemarketing robocalls applies to telemarketing calls using soundboard technology comport with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment?
  • Soundboard Association v. FTC (U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit)
• Does a prohibition on imposing surcharges for paying by credit card violate the free speech protections of the First Amendment?
  • Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman (U.S. Supreme Court; U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit)
• Are the First Amendment rights of soft drink advertisers violated by an ordinance requiring prominent health warnings on advertisements for sugar sweetened beverages?
  • American Beverage Ass’n v. City & County of San Francisco (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit)
• The NYC Board of Health May Require Chain Restaurants to Post Warnings Alerting Customers to High Sodium Menu Items.
  • National Restaurant Ass’n v. New York City Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene (N.Y. Supreme Court, Appellate Div.)
• D.C. Circuit finds that SEC rule requiring manufacturers to disclose when minerals in their products were not found to be “DRC conflict-free” violates manufacturers’ First Amendment rights.
  • Nat’l Ass’n of Manufacturers v. SEC (U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit)
• Should the First Amendment protect food companies that want to label genetically modified foods as “natural,” and don’t want to disclose the presence of genetically modified ingredients?
  • Grocery Manufacturers’ Ass’n v. Sorrell (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit)
• Are the First Amendment rights of tobacco companies violated by a court order that they issue factual statements about the harms of tobacco use and disclose their own past deceptive conduct?
  • Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. United States of America (U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit)
• A lenient standard of First Amendment review applies when government requires companies to disclose factual information for the public interest.
  • American Meat Inst. v. United States Dept. of Agriculture (U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, en banc)
• Requiring pharmacy benefit managers to send data to insurance companies does not compel speech in violation of California’s Free Speech Clause.
  • Beeman v. Anthem Prescription Management (California Supreme Court)
• Restricting the sale of tobacco products at discounted prices does not violate the free speech rights of tobacco sellers.
  • National Ass’n of Tobacco Outlets, Inc. v. City of Providence (U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit; U.S. District Court, Rhode Island)
• Second Circuit finds municipal requirement that tobacco retailers post graphic warnings to be preempted by federal law.
  • 23-34 94th St. Grocery Corp. v. New York City Bd. of Health (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit)
• Sixth Circuit finds that most of new federal statutory restrictions on tobacco marketing do not violate the free speech rights of tobacco companies.
  • Discount Tobacco City & Lottery, Inc. v. United States (U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit)
• United States Supreme Court upholds government’s ability to require that businesses disclose factual information to consumers.
  • Milavetz, Fallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States (U.S. Supreme Court)

Briefs Joined By Public Good

For more information about a case, click on the case description below.

• Supreme Court holds that restrictions on marketing physician-identifying prescription data violates marketers’ freedom of speech.
  • Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court)