Missouri Broadcasters Association v. Lacy, No. 16-2006 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit challenging Mo. Rev. Stat. 311.070.4(10) and its regulations, which detail the information alcohol manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, and retailers can include in their advertisements. Plaintiffs alleged a violation of their freedom of speech under the First Amendment because the challenged provisions prohibit truthful, non-misleading commercial speech and restrict the free flow of truthful information to potential customers. Plaintiffs also claim that the provisions are inconsistently enforced. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. The court reversed, concluding that the amended complaint included sufficient allegations that the challenged provisions did not directly advance the substantial interest of promoting responsible drinking and the amended complaint included more than sufficient information to plead the challenged restrictions are more extensive than necessary. The court found it clear that there are reasonable alternatives to the challenged restrictions Missouri could have enacted that are less intrusive to plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. Finally, plaintiffs have pled that the provisions unconstitutionally compel speech and association.
Court Description: Riley, Author, with Wollman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Constitutional law. Plaintiffs' complaint, alleging Mo Rev. Stat. Sec 311.070.4(1) and Mo. Code Regs. Ann. tit. 11. Sec. 70-2.240(5)(G), (I) detailing the information alcohol manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors and retailers can include in their advertisements, violate plaintiffs' freedom of speech under the First Amendment, stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, and the district court erred in granting defendants' motion to dismiss; on its face, plaintiffs' amended complaint plausibly demonstrates the challenged provisions do not directly advance the government's asserted substantial interest of promoting responsible drinking, are more extensive than necessary and unconstitutionally compel speech and association.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.