First Amendment topicsAbout the First Amendment
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel (docket #: 83-2166) (1985)  [Findlaw]

Argument Date 01/07/1985
Decided 5/28/1985
Supreme Court Vote 3-5-0
Supreme Court Ruling First Amendment claim upheld in part, denied in part; the reprimand for omission of information was upheld
IssueWhether a series of Ohio laws prohibiting advertising by lawyers about a specific legal problem, containing illustration, or omitting crucial information violated the First Amendment.
Majority Opinion White, J. (Powell, J. not participating)
Concurring Opinion Brennan, J. (joined by Marshall, J., concurring in part, concurring in judgment and dissenting in part) & O'Connor, J. (joined by Burger, C.J. & Rehnquist, J., concurring in part, concurring in judgment and dissenting in part
Lower Court Ohio Supreme Court
Lower Court Ruling First Amendment claim denied
For Petitioner
Alan B. Morrison

For Respondent
H. Bartow Farr III

For Amicus
Bruce Campbell and Charles S. Sims for the American Civil Liberties Union et al.

E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr. for A.H. Robins Co.

Ruling - Lower Court
10 Ohio St. 3d 44; 461 N. E. 2d 883
Greenhouse, Linda, "Business and the Law," The New York Times, Dec. 25, 1984, p. 42
Greenhouse, Linda, "High Court Agrees to Hear Appeals on Speech Rights," The New York Times, Oct. 2, 1984, Sect. A, p. 1
Brody, Steven G. & Johnson, Bruce E. H., ADVERTISING AND COMMERCIAL SPEECH: A FIRST AMENDMENT GUIDE (2ND ED., 2006), sect. 4.3
About this site
About the First Amendment
About the First Amendment Center
First Amendment programs
State of the First Amendment

First Reports
Supreme Court
First Amendment publications
First Amendment Center history
Freedom Sings™
First Amendment

Congressional Research Service reports
Guest editorials
FOI material
The First Amendment

Lesson plans
Contact us
Privacy statement
Related links