Inc. Florida Bar v. Went For It

The Court has traditionally construed the First Amendment as primarily protecting political speech, with "commercial" speech enjoying less protection. As late as 1942 the Court ruled in Valentine v. Chrestensen, a case involving prohibition of the distribution of handbills on a public street, that the First Amendment does not prohibit government regulation of "purely commercial advertising." This holding was followed until the Court struck down a ban on the advertising of prescription drug prices in Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. (1976). The following year the Court moved toward greater protection of commercial speech, striking down a ban on advertising the prices of certain legal services in Bates v. Arizona.

The scope of protection of commercial speech was clarified in Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980), in which the Court laid out a three-pronged test regarding the permissibility of government regulation of such speech: (1) the rule must be in support of a substantial government interest; (2) it must materially advance that interest; and (3) it must be no broader than necessary to accomplish its purpose. After Central Hudson the Court struck down bans on lawyer advertising in Zauder v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio (1985) and Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association (1988). In Shapero a complete ban on direct-mail advertising by lawyers was found not to be an invasion of privacy and was struck down. The Court has also afforded protection to commercial speech in other cases not involving lawyers.