BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK v. FOX

Legal Principle at Issue

Does the First Amendment require government restrictions on commercial speech to use the least restrictive means available to achieve a legitimate governmental objective, or is it sufficient that the restrictions are narrowly tailored to serve that objective?

Action

Reversed and remanded. Petitioning party received a favorable disposition.

Facts/Syllabus

Resolution 66-156 of the State University of New York (SUNY) prohibits private commercial enterprises from operating in SUNY facilities. After the resolution was applied by campus police to bar American Future Systems, Inc. from demonstrating and selling its housewares at a party hosted in a student dormitory, respondent Todd Fox and other students sued for a declaratory judgment that such action violated the First Amendment. 

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the resolution but, after a trial, found for SUNY on the ground that its dormitories did not constitute a public forum for purposes of commercial activity, and that the restrictions on speech were reasonable in light of the dormitories' purpose. 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 (1980), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 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 Second Circuit therefore reversed and remanded to the trial court.