## Facts

- A broadcasting association and member radio/TV stations in Louisiana sought to air promotional advertisements for lawful, regulated private casinos in Louisiana and Mississippi.
- Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 1304, and an FCC implementing regulation prohibited radio and television stations from broadcasting advertisements or information concerning lotteries or similar schemes involving chance, including private commercial casino gambling.
- The broadcasters alleged they would run the casino advertisements but for the threat of federal enforcement and sanctions.
- The broadcasters’ signals could reach neighboring states where private casino gambling was illegal.
- The broadcasters filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the prohibition was unconstitutional as applied under the First Amendment protection for commercial speech.
- The district court upheld the law on summary judgment under the Central Hudson commercial-speech test, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether § 1304 and the FCC regulation, as applied to truthful advertisements for lawful private casino gambling broadcast by Louisiana stations, violate the First Amendment under the Central Hudson commercial-speech framework.
2. Whether the broadcast advertising prohibition directly and materially advances the Government’s asserted interests in reducing gambling-related social costs and supporting states that prohibit or restrict gambling.
3. Whether the prohibition is more extensive than necessary to serve the asserted governmental interests, given the overall federal and state gambling and advertising scheme.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed.
- The Court held that § 1304 could not be constitutionally applied to prohibit these broadcasters from airing advertisements for lawful private casino gambling broadcast from Louisiana.
- The Court accepted that the proposed advertisements were commercial speech, not misleading, and concerned lawful activity, satisfying Central Hudson’s first prong.
- The Court assumed the Government’s asserted interests were substantial but found the restriction failed Central Hudson’s third and fourth prongs.
- The Court concluded the statutory and regulatory scheme was internally inconsistent and underinclusive because it permitted and, in some contexts, favored advertising for other lawful gambling (including forms associated with governmental or otherwise permitted operations) while suppressing advertising for a subset of lawful private casino gambling.
- The Court distinguished prior precedent upholding related restrictions in a different regulatory setting, concluding that case did not control this as-applied challenge.

## Legal Principles

- Commercial speech about lawful activity that is not misleading may be restricted only if the Government proves, under Central Hudson, a substantial interest, direct and material advancement of that interest, and a reasonable fit between means and ends.
- The Government bears the burden to justify a commercial-speech restriction; speculative, ineffective, or remote support for asserted interests is insufficient.
- A regulatory scheme that allows significant gambling activity and related advertising while selectively restricting truthful advertising for other lawful gambling can fail the “direct advancement” requirement due to inconsistency and underinclusiveness.
- A broad suppression of truthful advertising for lawful conduct can be “more extensive than necessary” when less speech-restrictive alternatives are available.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the federal broadcast advertising prohibition could not be applied to bar Louisiana broadcasters from airing truthful advertisements for lawful private casino gambling, because the restriction did not materially advance the Government’s asserted interests in a coherent way and was broader than necessary under Central Hudson.


Greater New Orleans Broad. Ass’n, Inc. v. United States, 527 U.S. 173 (1999)