Board of Trustees of State University of New York v. Fox

Board of Trustees of State University of New York v. Fox

Argued February 22, 1989
Decided June 29, 1989
Full case name Board of Trustees of State University of New York v. Fox
Citations

492 U.S. 469 (more)

Argument Oral argument
Prior history Cert. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Holding
The Court of Appeals erred in requiring the District Court to apply a least restrictive means test to Resolution 66-156; so long as the means are narrowly tailored to achieve the desired objective, it is for governmental decisionmakers to judge what manner of regulation may be employed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Case opinions
Majority Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, White, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy
Dissent Blackmun, joined by Brennan, Marshall
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Board of Trustees of State University of New York v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469 (1989), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court instructed a lower court to reevaluate the compatibility of a resolution of the State University of New York that prohibited private commercial enterprises from operating in SUNY facilities with the First Amendment.[1] The Court instructed the lower court to use the standard outlined in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980) and determine whether the restriction on speech advanced the state's interest and, if so, whether the state's method was the least restrictive means to that end.[1]

References

  1. 1 2 Board of Trustees, State Univ. of N. Y. v. Fox, Opinion United States Supreme Court, "Viewing the challenged application of the resolution as a restriction on commercial speech, and therefore applying the test articulated in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm'n of New York, 447 U.S. 557, the Court of Appeals concluded that it was unclear whether the resolution directly advanced the State's asserted interests and whether, if it did, it was the least restrictive means to that end. The court therefore reversed and remanded to the trial court."
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 6/14/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.