Ctia - the Wireless Ass'n v. City of Berkeley
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1DissentWardlaw, Circuit Judge
Ordinarily, I do not file “dissentals,” particularly where there is an existing dissent. I am compelled to write here, however, because Judge Friedland’s dissent, which I agree with entirely, rests principally on the ground that the required disclosure is itself misleading, whereas I believe the panel majority applied the wrong legal standard. We should have taken this case en banc to clarify that Zauderer1 s rational basis standard applies only when the government compels speech to prevent consumer deception. See Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626, 651, 105 S.Ct. 2265,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Safelite Group, Inc. v. JepsenCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2014
- American Beverage Ass'n v. City & County of San FranciscoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- American Meat Institute v. United States Department of AgricultureCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2014
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.