Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commn. of New York case brief

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commn. of New York case brief summary
447 U.S. 557 (1980)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Appellant challenged a judgment from the Court of Appeals of New York that upheld as constitutional a regulation promulgated by appellee that completely banned promotional advertising by an electrical utility such as appellant. Appellant contended that the regulation impermissibly restrained commercial speech in violation of U.S. Constitutional amends. I and XIV.

CASE FACTS
Appellee promulgated a regulation that banned all promotional advertising by electric utility companies operating in the state. Appellant challenged a judgment from the state's highest court that ruled that the regulation did not violate U.S. Constitutional amends. I and XIV rights.

DISCUSSION

• On appeal, the Court reversed after applying the four-prong analysis relevant to commercial speech cases. 
• The Court: 
• (1) noted that appellee did not claim that the expression at issue either was inaccurate or related to unlawful activity; 
• (2) ruled that appellant's promotional advertising was not unprotected commercial speech merely because appellant held a monopoly over electricity in its service area; 
• (3) ruled that, while appellee's interests in energy conservation and ensuring fair and efficient energy rates were substantial, the link between the advertising ban and appellant's rate structure was, at most, tenuous, and; 
• (4) ruled that, because the regulation reached all promotional advertising, it was more extensive than necessary to further appellee's interest in energy conservation. 
• As such, the regulation impermissibly infringed appellant's First Amendment rights.

CONCLUSION
The Court reversed a judgment that upheld as constitutional appellee's regulation that completely banned promotional advertising by an electrical utility, such as appellant, because the regulation impermissibly restrained appellant's First Amendment right of free speech. Appellee's asserted state interest in ensuring fair and efficient utility rates was not sufficiently linked to the advertising ban.


Suggested Study Aids and Books