Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio
The Court held that states can require an advertiser to disclose certain information without violating the advertiser's First Amendment free speech protections as long as the disclosure requirements are reasonably related to the State's interest in preventing deception of consumers.
471 U.S. 626 · No. 83-2166 · 1984 term · Burger Court
Decided May 28, 1985 · argued Jan 7, 1985
Attorneys · Commercial speech, attorneys
Struck down a state law
Majority opinion: Byron White
The voteMajorityDissent
5–35 in the majority, 3 in dissent
3 dissents (6–3)
Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part. Zauderer won.
What this ruling means
Affirmed in part and reversed in part: the Supreme Court upheld part of the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court and overturned or set aside the rest.
Zauderer was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that states can require an advertiser to disclose certain information without violating the advertiser's First Amendment free speech protections as long as the disclosure requirements are reasonably related to the State's interest in preventing deception of consumers. The decision effected identified that some commercial speech may have weaker First Amendment free speech protections than non-commercial speech and that states can compel such commercial speech to protect their interests; future cases have relied on the "Zauderer standard" to determine the constitutionality of state laws that compel commercial speech as long as the information to be disclosed is "purely factual and uncontroversial".
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1984 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Byron WhiteWrote the majority opinion
William BrennanWrote a concurrence
Thurgood MarshallJoined the majority
John StevensJoined the majority
Harry BlackmunJoined the majority
Dissent(3)
Sandra O'ConnorWrote a dissent
Warren BurgerJoined a dissent
William RehnquistJoined a dissent
Did not take part: Lewis Powell.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- ZaudererAttorney, or person acting as such;includes bar applicant or law student, or law firm or bar association
- Respondent
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of OhioState or U.S. supreme court (Ohio)
- Reached the Court by
- Appeal (the Court was required to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- First Amendment (speech, press, and assembly)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level)
- Struck down
- A state law, as unconstitutional
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- May 28, 1985DecidedDecided · Decided 5–3: affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part. Zauderer won.
- Jan 7, 1985ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the Ohio Supreme Court: affirmed.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
11 other argued cases since 1946 on commercial speech, attorneys, newest first.
- Edward F. Maracich, et al., Petitioners v. Michael Eugene Spears et al.570 U.S. 48Jun 17, 2013 · 570 U.S. 48Attorneys5–45–4 band
- Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P. A., et al. v. United States559 U.S. 229Mar 8, 2010 · 559 U.S. 229Attorneys9–0Unanimous band
- Florida Bar v. Went for It, Inc., and John T. Blakely515 U.S. 618Jun 21, 1995 · 515 U.S. 618Attorneys5–45–4 band
- Silvia S. Ibanez v. Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Accountancy512 U.S. 136Jun 13, 1994 · 512 U.S. 136Attorneys7–27–2 band
- Gary E. Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois496 U.S. 91Jun 4, 1990 · 496 U.S. 91Attorneys5–45–4 band
- Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association486 U.S. 466Jun 13, 1988 · 486 U.S. 466Attorneys6–36–3 band
- In re R. M. J.455 U.S. 191Jan 25, 1982 · 455 U.S. 191Attorneys9–0Unanimous band
- Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn.436 U.S. 447May 30, 1978 · 436 U.S. 447Attorneys8–0Unanimous band
- In re Primus436 U.S. 412May 30, 1978 · 436 U.S. 412Attorneys7–18–1 band
- Bates et al. v. State Bar of Arizona433 U.S. 350Jun 27, 1977 · 433 U.S. 350Attorneys5–45–4 band
- United Transportation Union v. State Bar of Michigan401 U.S. 576Apr 5, 1971 · 401 U.S. 576Attorneys5–36–3 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.