Gary E. Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, saying the letterhead was truthful, and the First Amendment favored disclosure over concealing information.
496 U.S. 91 · No. 88-1775 · 1989 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided Jun 4, 1990 · argued Jan 17, 1990
Attorneys · Commercial speech, attorneys
Struck down a state law
Majority opinion: John Stevens
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Reversed and remanded. Gary E. Peel won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Gary E. Peel 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.
Peel v. Attorney Disciplinary Commission of Illinois, 496 US 91 (1990), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that Illinois' rule against attorneys advertising themselves as "certified" violated their freedom of speech under the First Amendment. The Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (IARDC) had found that Peel's letterhead, which stated that he was "Certified Civil Trial Specialist By the National Board of Trial Advocacy," had broken state professional rules, and the Illinois Supreme Court had adopted their recommendation of public sanction. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, saying the letterhead was truthful, and the First Amendment favored disclosure over concealing information.
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 1989 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
John StevensWrote the majority opinion
Thurgood MarshallWrote a concurrence
William BrennanJoined the majority
Harry BlackmunJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
Byron WhiteWrote a dissent
Sandra O'ConnorWrote a dissent
Antonin ScaliaJoined a dissent
William RehnquistJoined a dissent
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
- Gary E. PeelAttorney, or person acting as such;includes bar applicant or law student, or law firm or bar association
- Respondent
- Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of IllinoisState commission, board, committee, or authority (Illinois)
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose 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.
- Jun 4, 1990DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: reversed and remanded. Gary E. Peel won.
- Jan 17, 1990ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the Illinois 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
- Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association486 U.S. 466Jun 13, 1988 · 486 U.S. 466Attorneys6–36–3 band
- Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio471 U.S. 626May 28, 1985 · 471 U.S. 626Attorneys5–36–3 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.