Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of NewYork - Significance, The Four-part Test, Questioning The Four-part Test, Further Readings

court appellant york appellee

Appellant

Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp.

Appellee

Public Service Commission of New York

Appellant's Claim

That a regulation by the New York Public Service Commission, banning the use of promotional advertising by the electrical utility Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp., was a restraint of commercial speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Chief Lawyer for the Appellant

Telford Taylor

Chief Lawyer for the Appellee

Peter H. Schiff

Justices for the Court

Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger, Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (writing for the Court), John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting

William H. Rehnquist

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

20 June 1980

Decision

The Court reversed the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals, and found that the restraint of commercial speech was a violation of the appellant's rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Related Cases

Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976).
44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996).

Additional Topics

Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of NewYork - Significance

Central Hudson was the most significant case up to its time in establishing a framework for the practice of commercial speech. The case set in place a four-part test--which was not without controversy--for the constitutionality of state laws restraining commercial speech, which is somewhat more limited that ordinary free speech under the First Amendment. In 1973, the oil-producing nations of the w…

Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of NewYork - The Four-part Test

The Supreme Court held 8-1 that the commission's order was unconstitutional. Justice Powell, who gave the Court's opinion, used a four-part test for the constitutionality of a law limiting commercial speech. First of all, a court must determine whether such speech is protected under the First Amendment. Assuming it passes that test, then it comes under a three-part formula for balancing interests.…

Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of NewYork - Questioning The Four-part Test

Justices Brennan, Blackmun, and Stevens all concurred in the judgment, but they placed a finer point on questions of restricting free speech. Brennan, who joined in the opinions of his colleagues Blackmun and Stevens, cited the vagueness of the commission's distinction between promotional and informational or institutional advertising. Blackmun, while agreeing that the four-part test was adequate …

Citing this material

Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.

Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.