F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
JUL 24 2001
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
UTAH LICENSED BEVERAGE
ASSOCIATION, a Utah non-profit
corporation; WAYNE BENSON; and
NEW MOON PRESS, INC., a Utah
corporation d.b.a. CATALYST,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. No. 00-4058
MICHAEL LEAVITT, Governor, State
of Utah; JANET GRAHAM, Attorney
General, State of Utah; JERRY D.
FENN, Chair, Utah Alcoholic
Beverage Control Commission;
NICHOLAS E. HALES, VICKIE
McCALL, TED LEWIS, and CARL
HAWKINS, Members, Utah Alcoholic
Beverage Control Commission,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal From The United States District Court
for the District of Utah
(D.C. No. 2:96-CV-581-S)
Brian M. Barnard, (James L. Harris, Jr., with him on the briefs), Utah Legal
Clinic, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Thom D. Roberts, Assistant Attorney General, State of Utah (Jan Graham,
Attorney General, State of Utah, with him on the brief), Salt Lake City, Utah, for
Defendants-Appellees.
Before HENRY and MURPHY , Circuit Judges, and MILLS , District Judge. 1
HENRY , Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the defendant state
officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the
First Amendment. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a
preliminary injunction, as well as their motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs
now appeal the denial of the preliminary injunction; we have jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Because Supreme Court precedent protects the
commercial speech at issue here, we reverse the judgment of the district court.
BACKGROUND
The State of Utah exercises strict control over the importation, distribution,
marketing, and sale of alcoholic beverages within its borders. In this case, we are
asked to decide whether one aspect of that control–Utah’s restrictions on
commercial advertisements for liquor–impermissibly infringes upon the First
Amendment rights of that state’s citizens.
1
The Honorable Richard Mills, United States District Judge for the Central
District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
-2-
Both parties in this case recognize that the Twenty-first Amendment gives
Utah broad powers to regulate alcoholic beverages. See U.S. Const., amend. XXI,
§ 2; Ziffrin, Inc. v. Reeves , 308 U.S. 132, 138 (1939). However, in 1996,
appellants (henceforth collectively referred to as “ULBA,” for Utah Licensed
Beverage Association) sued defendants (henceforth “Utah”). ULBA argued that
in light of certain recent First Amendment decisions by the Supreme Court,
Utah’s laws restricting commercial advertising by vendors of wine and distilled
spirits could no longer be considered a proper exercise of the state’s Twenty-first
Amendment powers. See Aplt’s Br. at 2 (citing 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode
Island , 517 U.S. 484 (1996), and Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co. , 514 U.S. 476
(1995)).
Three years later, the district court denied ULBA’s motions for summary
judgment and for a preliminary injunction. It concluded that ULBA had not
demonstrated “that the State’s restrictions on advertising of alcoholic beverages
are an unconstitutional infringement upon [ULBA’s] First Amendment rights,”
and had failed to establish any of the elements necessary to support a preliminary
injunction. Aplt’s App. at 251 (Memorandum Decision Addressing Plaintiffs’
Motion for Preliminary Injunction, dated Feb. 28, 2000, at 5). ULBA now
appeals.
-3-
DISCUSSION
I. Standard Of Review
We review a district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction for an abuse
of discretion. 2
See A.C.L.U. v. Johnson , 194 F.3d 1149, 1155 (10th Cir. 1999).
An abuse of discretion occurs “only when the trial court bases its decision on an
erroneous conclusion of law or where there is no rational basis in the evidence for
the ruling.” Hawkins v. City and County of Denver , 170 F.3d 1281, 1292 (10th
Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted).
II. Elements Necessary To Obtain A Preliminary Injunction
In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, a movant must establish (1) that
it has a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits; (2) that it will suffer
irreparable injury if the injunction is denied; (3) that the threatened injury to the
movant outweighs the injury that the opposing party will suffer under the
injunction; and (4) that the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.
See Country Kids ’N City Slicks, Inc. v. Sheen , 77 F.3d 1280, 1283 (10th Cir.
2
On Feb. 28, 2000, the district court simultaneously denied ULBA’s
motions for a preliminary injunction and for summary judgment. ULBA has
appealed the denial of its requested preliminary injunction, but has not appealed
the denial of summary judgment, which is ordinarily not a final order under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. See Schmidt v. Farm Credit Servs. , 977 F.2d 511, 513 n.3 (10th
Cir. 1992).
-4-
1996). Because “a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, the right to
relief must be clear and unequivocal.” SCFC ILC, Inc. v. Visa USA, Inc. , 936
F.2d 1096, 1098 (10th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted).
III. ULBA’s Likelihood of Success on the Merits
ULBA contends that despite our deferential standard of review, it has
demonstrated a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits, because the
district court made an error of law and “misapplied” the test set forth in Central
Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm’n of New York , 447 U.S.
557 (1980). As a consequence, ULBA maintains that it has satisfied the first
requirement for preliminary injunctive relief.
Under Central Hudson , laws restricting commercial speech are subject to an
“intermediate” level of scrutiny. The Supreme Court stated:
In commercial speech cases, then, a four-part analysis has developed.
At the outset, we must determine whether the expression is protected by
the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within that
provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading.
Next, we ask whether the asserted government interest is substantial.
If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine whether the
regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and
whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.
Id. at 566. In order to determine whether the district court made an error of law
when it concluded that ULBA had not established a likelihood of success on the
merits, we must review that court’s application of the Central Hudson test.
-5-
A. The District Court’s Central Hudson Analysis
The district court considered the four part Central Hudson test in detail in
its Memorandum Decision Addressing Plaintiffs’ Motion For Summary Judgment,
which it incorporated by reference into its Memorandum Decision Addressing
Plaintiffs’ Motion For Preliminary Injunction.
With respect to the first part of the Central Hudson test, whether the
regulated speech concerns lawful activity and is not misleading, the district court
agreed with ULBA that a number of the challenged statutes regulated lawful,
nonmisleading speech. It rejected Utah’s argument that the majority of the
statutes regulated conduct, not speech, and were thus constitutional. The court
stated that, because “[c]onsumption of alcoholic beverages involves lawful
conduct,” and “[c]ommercial speech about lawful conduct is subject to First
Amendment protection,” Utah could not “escape review of its legislation by
asserting that the challenged conduct is unlawful under the very same legislation
being reviewed.” Aplt’s App. at 268.
In the second part of the test, which requires the court to assess the
substantiality of the government’s interest, the district court found that the
interests cited by Utah in support of its advertising restrictions were in fact
substantial. The court identified these interests as the “operation of a public
business, with the goal of satisfying public demand for alcoholic beverages while
-6-
protecting the public interest ‘including the rights of citizens who do not wish to
be involved with alcoholic products,’” as well as “the promotion of the public
welfare,” including concerns such as “temperance, health, safety, consumer
protection [and] protecting minors.” Id. at 270 (citing Utah Code Ann. § 32A-1-
104(3) (1999)). The court rejected ULBA’s argument that protecting non-
drinkers from alcohol advertising could not be a substantial interest, stating that
where “operating a public business . . . involves alcoholic beverages it seems
clear that a substantial interest is involved, even when a stated goal is to protect
non-drinkers.” Id. at 271.
The district court then turned to the third part of the test, inquiring whether
the Utah laws directly advanced the interests identified by the state. The court
noted statistics put forth by ULBA which supposedly demonstrated that the repeal
of advertising restrictions would not lead to an increase in overall demand for
alcohol. It then reviewed the evidence submitted by Utah, in the form of
testimony and affidavits by various physicians and public health officials, who
opined that “the State’s public welfare interest is real and materially advanced by
the State’s regulation of alcoholic beverage advertising.” Id. at 273. The court
concluded that “there is sufficient evidence of record to place in dispute the issue
of whether the State’s asserted interests in restricting advertising of alcoholic
-7-
beverages are directly and materially advanced by the challenged restrictions on
advertising alcoholic beverages.” Id. at 273-74.
Finally, the district court reached the fourth part of the Central Hudson test,
“whether the speech restriction is no more extensive than is necessary to serve the
government interest.” Id. at 274. It cited the Supreme Court’s recent discussion
in Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass’n, Inc., v. United States , 527 U.S. 173
(1999), where the Court stated that in the fourth part of the test, “[t]he
Government is not required to employ the least restrictive means conceivable, but
it must demonstrate narrow tailoring of the challenged regulation to the asserted
interest–a fit that is not necessarily perfect, but reasonable.” Aplt’s App. at 274
(quoting Greater New Orleans , 527 U.S. at 188) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
The district court determined that Utah had again “succeeded in placing in
dispute” the issue of whether its statutes satisfied the fourth part of Central
Hudson . Aplt’s App. at 278. It stated that Utah’s statutes fell short of being “a
total or blanket ban against dissemination of any information about alcoholic
beverages,” and that “[l]ess burdensome alternative methods to advance the
somewhat contradictory interests of the State do not readily come to mind.” Id. at
276, 278. It described those “contradictory interests” as Utah’s goals of
“operating its alcoholic beverage business using sound business practices to
-8-
service public demand, while at the same time operating under the stricture that it
not promote the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages.” Id. at 278 n.8.
B. Application of Central Hudson to Utah’s Challenged Regulations
We now turn to the question of whether the district court’s application of
the Central Hudson test was correct. As we do so, we are mindful of the Supreme
Court’s consistent admonition that “in cases raising First Amendment issues . . .
an appellate court has an obligation to ‘make an independent examination of the
whole record’ in order to make sure that ‘the judgment does not constitute a
forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression.’” Bose Corp. v. Consumers
Union of United States, Inc. , 466 U.S. 485, 499 (1984) (quoting New York Times
Co. v. Sullivan , 376 U.S. 254, 284-86 (1964)); see also Lytle v. City of Haysville,
Kan. , 138 F.3d 857, 862 (10th Cir. 1998). This searching review is a
consequence of the primacy of First Amendment speech protections; broad
interpretations of the freedom of speech have repeatedly attracted substantial
majorities of the Supreme Court. See , e.g. , Greater New Orleans , 527 U.S. 173
(1999); Hustler v. Falwell , 485 U.S. 46 (1988); Brandenburg v. Ohio , 395 U.S.
444 (1969).
1. Regulation of Truthful, Nonmisleading Speech
-9-
The district court found that several of the statutes in controversy restrict
truthful, nonmisleading commercial speech, not conduct, and thus satisfy the first
part of Central Hudson . Unsurprisingly, ULBA does not contest this finding.
Utah, however, claims that some of these statutes are permissible prohibitions on
the advertising of unlawful conduct. For instance, Utah Code Ann. § 32A-12-
401(6) prohibits “the advertising or use of any means or media to offer alcoholic
beverages to the general public without charge.” Utah Code Ann. § 32A-12-
401(6) (2000). Utah reasons that because the state may ban alcohol “giveaways,”
it may also ban the advertising of such giveaways, and thus this statute is not
unconstitutional under Central Hudson . Aple’s Br. at 16-19.
We agree with the district court that such statutes are distinguishable from
those challenged on appeal by ULBA. ULBA’s brief describes “the main Utah
statutes at issue herein” as Utah Code Ann. § 32A-12-401(2), which provides that:
The advertising or use of any means or media to induce persons to buy
liquor is prohibited, except:
(a) a restaurant licensee, an airport lounge licensee, a manufacturing
licensee, or a private club licensee may display a sign on the
front of, in the window of, and inside its premises stating
“Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Licensee,” “DABC
Licensee,” or “State Liquor Licensee” in a form approved by the
department;
(b) a restaurant licensee may use the designation “Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control Licensee,” “DABC Licensee,” or
“State Liquor Licensee” in magazines, newspapers, telephone
-10-
book advertising pages, and other advertising in a nonbold 10-
point type face;
(c) a permittee may use the designation “Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control Permittee,” “DABC Permittee,” or “State
Liquor Permittee” in a form approved by the department when
informing the public or its invited guests about the event or
service for which the permit was obtained;
(d) a restaurant licensee may advertise liquor availability in menus
only to the extent authorized in Chapter 4;
(e) a hotel may advise its guests of liquor availability at its outlets
in informational materials; and
(f) as otherwise authorized by this title or the rules of the
commission.
Utah Code Ann. § 32A-12-401(2) (2000); as well as § 32A-12-401(4), which
provides that:
The display of liquor or price lists in windows or showcases visible to
passersby is prohibited.
Utah Code Ann. § 32A-12-401(4) (2000); and § 32A-12-104, which provides that:
Any person who violates this title or the commission rules adopted
under this title is guilty of a class B misdemeanor, unless otherwise
provided in this title.
Utah Code Ann. § 32A-12-104 (2000). These statutes are the only statutes clearly
raised on appeal. See Aplt’s Br. at 4-5. Because they restrict the speech of
individuals engaged in otherwise lawful, nonmisleading commercial activity, we
find no error in the district court’s conclusion that they satisfy the first part of
Central Hudson .
-11-
2. Substantiality of the Government Interest in Regulation
The second part of Central Hudson asks whether the interests asserted by
the state in order to justify the speech regulations are substantial. Again, because
of the importance of First Amendment speech protections, “the government bears
the responsibility of building a record adequate to clearly articulate and justify”
these state interests. U.S. West, Inc. v. Federal Communications Comm’n , 182
F.3d 1224, 1234 (10th Cir. 1999). Not only is this the government’s burden, but
courts may not help; the Supreme Court has clearly stated that courts may not
“supplant the precise interests put forward by the State with other suppositions.”
Edenfield v. Fane , 507 U.S. 761, 768 (1993).
As stated above, the district court found that Utah had substantial interests
in the operation of liquor sales as a public business (including “protecting
nondrinkers”), and in the public welfare, including temperance, health, and safety.
On appeal, ULBA argues that Utah has identified no constitutionally substantial
state interests other than “temperance.” Aplt’s Br. at 13. It should be noted that
this argument is itself tempered by ULBA’s broad definition of the term. Even if
“temperance” is understood to include essentially all public health related goals, 3
3
In ULBA’s view, these include discouraging “over-consumption,”
intoxication, drunk driving, and underage access and consumption; minimizing
the health consequences of alcohol; and “promoting public safety, health and
welfare as related to alcohol.” See Aplt’s Br. at 13-14.
-12-
ULBA does not object to the district court’s characterization of “temperance” as a
state interest that can satisfy the second part of Central Hudson .
However, ULBA proposes that Utah’s alleged public interest in “operating
a well managed public business in selling alcohol is not substantial such as to
allow First Amendment infringement”; that its interest in “protecting nondrinkers
from liquor advertising” is “contrary to the basic concepts of free expression”;
and that its goal of “protecting consumers from improper claims” or
“overreaching” cannot justify general restrictions on advertising. Aplt’s Br. at
13-14; Aplt’s Reply Br. at 7-8. ULBA also states that Utah has failed to
articulate and justify any of these state interests in a manner sufficient to satisfy
Central Hudson ’s second part.
In opposition, Utah does not present new arguments in support of these
interests, but merely asserts that temperance, operating a public business,
protecting the public welfare, protecting nondrinkers, and all activities subsidiary
to those aims were determined by the district court to be legitimate and
substantial interests of the state. In support of the district court’s conclusion,
Utah does contend that the Twenty-first Amendment, “granting the states the right
to completely control alcohol in its [sic] borders, as well as the public safety,
health and welfare interests and the police power all combine to make, as the
court below found, these State interests ‘substantial.’” Aple’s Br. at 19-20.
-13-
If the term is broadly defined to include goals such as promoting public
health, discouraging underage consumption, and the like, both parties seem to
agree that Utah has established “temperance” as an adequate basis for state
regulation under the second part of the test. See 44 Liquormart , 517 U.S. at 504
(discussing a state’s interest in promoting “temperance,” defined as “reducing
alcohol consumption”). Operating liquor sales as a public business qualifies as an
additional substantial interest, as the state’s monopoly over liquor sales not only
affects “temperance,” but also supplies revenue.
However, Supreme Court precedent suggests that even if protecting
nondrinkers from involvement with alcohol is part of a public business, it cannot
constitute a substantial state interest under Central Hudson . In Bolger v. Youngs
Drug Products Corp. , 463 U.S. 60 (1983), the Court struck down a federal statute
prohibiting the unsolicited mailing of contraceptive advertisements. The Court
stated that the government’s asserted interest, the shielding of “recipients of mail
from materials they are likely to find offensive . . . carries little weight.” Bolger ,
463 U.S. at 71. It held that:
In striking down a state prohibition of contraceptive advertisements in
Carey v. Population Services International , [431 U.S. 678 (1977),] we
stated that offensiveness was “classically not [a] justificatio[n]
validating the suppression of expression protected by the First
Amendment. At least where obscenity is not involved, we have
consistently held that the fact that protected speech may be offensive to
some does not justify its suppression.” We specifically declined to
recognize a distinction between commercial and noncommercial speech
-14-
that would render this interest a sufficient justification for a prohibition
of commercial speech.
Id. at 71-72 (citations and footnote omitted). We can see little distinction
between the “offensiveness” rationale that the Court deemed unsubstantial in
Bolger , and that of protecting nondrinkers. Because Bolger also concerned
commercial speech, we construe it to mean that protecting nondrinkers cannot
constitute a substantial state interest justifying Utah’s speech restriction, even as
one aspect of operating a public business.
We conclude that Utah has identified two substantial state interests that
potentially justify its speech restrictions: temperance (expansively defined), and
the operation of a public business.
3. Whether Utah’s Laws Directly Advance the State’s Interests
ULBA next contends that the district court was incorrect when it concluded
that, for the purpose of surviving summary judgment, Utah’s laws satisfied the
third part of Central Hudson . The third part of Central Hudson “concerns the
relationship between the harm that underlies the State’s interest and the means
identified by the State to advance that interest.” Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly ,
121 S. Ct. 2404, 2422 (2001). We must therefore consider whether Utah’s laws
restricting liquor advertising “directly and materially” advance its interests in
-15-
temperance and the operation of a public business. See Greater New Orleans , 527
U.S. at 188.
The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he party seeking to uphold a
restriction on commercial speech carries the burden of justifying it.” Bolger , 463
U.S. at 71 n.20. This burden “is not satisfied by mere speculation or conjecture”;
in order to meet its burden, Utah “must demonstrate that the harms it recites are
real and that its restriction will in fact alleviate them to a material degree.”
Edenfield , 507 U.S. at 770-71. In addition, a speech regulation “may not be
sustained if it provides only ineffective or remote support for the government’s
purpose.” Greater New Orleans , 527 U.S. at 188 (quoting Central Hudson , 447
U.S. at 564). The Court cautions us that these requirements are “critical,” for
otherwise, “a State could with ease restrict commercial speech in the service of
other objectives that could not themselves justify a burden on commercial
expression.” Coors , 514 U.S. at 487 (quoting Edenfield , 507 U.S. at 771).
ULBA suggests Utah has failed to carry its burden for three reasons. The
first two of these concern the reality of the alleged harms, and the third pertains
to their alleviation. First, since 1996, when Utah amended its laws and repealed a
prior ban on beer advertising, there has apparently been no significant increase in
the consumption of beer within the state. From this, ULBA concludes that beer
advertising evidently does not affect beer consumption, and that the same is likely
-16-
to be true with respect to liquor and the liquor advertising ban. Second, ULBA
argues that the “overwhelming weight of scientific evidence, including the expert
testimony supporting [ULBA’s] motion for preliminary injunction,” tends to show
that advertising does not increase alcohol consumption. Aplt’s Br. at 19. In
ULBA’s view, these two facts demonstrate that the liquor advertising ban does
not prevent any real harm. 4
Third, ULBA proposes that Utah also fails Central Hudson ’s third part
because the state’s inconsistent treatment of different types of alcohol ensures
that its speech restrictions will not alleviate the harms they are designed to
4
We note that we are not convinced by ULBA’s beer sales statistics, which
purportedly demonstrate the lack of any connection between advertising and
alcohol sales. ULBA’s comparison of beer sales before and after the lifting of
Utah’s beer advertising ban, in that state alone, over a period of a few years, is
simplistic. As Utah suggests, many factors other than advertising (such as the
state of the economy, the character of national beer advertising unregulated by
Utah, or the taxes levied on alcohol sales) could have influenced beer sales over
the same period. See Aple’s Br. at 33.
For example, suppose that in 1996, sales of beer were about to drop
precipitously, due to increased public concerns about adverse health effects.
Suppose, too, that advertising did encourage consumption. When the advertising
ban was lifted, the new advertising might have increased beer consumption just
enough to cancel out the health-motivated drop which would otherwise have
occurred. The offsetting effects of these two trends might make advertising’s
effects look neutral, but on the facts of this hypothetical, that conclusion would
be incorrect.
Because ULBA does not employ a method, such as a multiple regression
analysis, that accounts for the other possible influences on alcohol sales, its Utah
beer sales statistics offer no reliable evidence as to whether there is a causal
relationship between advertising and alcohol sales.
-17-
redress, thus making the scheme “irrational” under Coors . In Coors , the Supreme
Court applied Central Hudson and struck down a federal statute that prohibited
the disclosure of alcohol content on the labels of containers of beer. The federal
government’s asserted interest was to prevent “strength wars” among beer
manufacturers, and the statute sought to accomplish this by banning both
“numerical indications of alcohol content” and “descriptive terms” such as
“strong” and “extra strength.” Coors , 514 U.S. at 480-81.
In applying the third part of the Central Hudson test, the Court stated that
the challenged beer label restriction “cannot directly and materially advance [the
government’s] asserted interest because of the overall irrationality of the
Government’s regulatory scheme,” under which there were additional provisions
within the same statute, as well as other federal laws, that undermined any
tendency of the labeling ban to prevent strength wars. Coors , 514 U.S. at 488.
These included provisions that permitted descriptions of alcohol content in
alcohol advertising, and permitted the disclosure of alcohol content on the labels
of alcoholic beverages other than beer. Id. at 488-89.
According to ULBA, unless one form of alcohol is more harmful or
dangerous than another, temperance cannot be promoted by a statutory scheme
that permits some types of alcohol advertising and proscribes others. But, ULBA
argues, Utah itself engages in a public health advertising campaign which states
-18-
that there is no meaningful difference, other than equivalent liquid volume,
among different kinds of alcohol. See Aplt’s App. at 242 (advertisement
declaring “Alcohol Is Alcohol Is Alcohol . . . It’s Not What You Drink. It’s How
Much.”). Because Utah has presented “no sound reason” why advertising
restrictions on wine and liquor confer more temperance benefits than comparable
(but nonexistent) restrictions on beer advertising, ULBA concludes that Utah’s
ban on the advertising of only certain kinds of alcoholic beverages is irrational,
and consequently unconstitutional, under Greater New Orleans and Coors . Aplt’s
Br. at 23-24.
Utah makes several counterarguments with respect to Central Hudson ’s
third part. First, Utah contends that under Board of Trustees of State University
of New York v. Fox , 492 U.S. 469 (1989), it is only required to achieve a
“reasonable” fit, not a “perfect” fit, between its regulations and its goals. Aple’s
Br. at 21-22 (quoting Fox , 492 U.S. at 480). Under Fox , Utah states that in
regulating commercial speech, it must employ “not necessarily the least restrictive
means but . . . a means narrowly tailored to achieve the desired objective.” Id.
Utah concludes that this gives it some latitude in selecting a permissible
advertising restriction. Second, Utah argues that ULBA “completely ignore[s]”
evidence submitted by the state, especially the statements of three physicians and
public health officials, suggesting that alcohol advertising does affect the
-19-
problems Utah identified as its substantial state interests. See Aple’s Br. at 23-
24; Aplt’s App. at 140-57.
Third, Utah defends its distinctions between beer and liquor advertising as
a permissible consequence of its decision, pursuant to its Twenty-first
Amendment powers, to apply different regulations to beer and liquor sales.
Because beer sales are not operated as a public business by the state, Utah
suggests that it is not irrational to regulate beer advertising differently from liquor
advertising. The state attributes this distinction to the fact that beer with a
sufficiently low alcohol content was not considered an intoxicating beverage
banned under the Eighteenth Amendment, and that when the Eighteenth
Amendment was repealed by the Twenty-first, Utah continued to regulate low-
alcohol beer in a manner different from other alcoholic beverages. See Aple’s Br.
at 25-27.
Before we conduct our own analysis of Central Hudson ’s third part, we
must note an issue raised by Utah’s arguments concerning the burden of proof.
Utah seems to imply that because ULBA is appealing the denial of a preliminary
injunction, it is ULBA’s burden to affirmatively attack the Utah statutes, rather
than Utah’s burden to defend them. For example, Utah states that ULBA has
“failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that
[ULBA] had failed to show that there was a likelihood they would prevail on the
-20-
issue of whether the regulations directly advance the State interests.” Aple’s Br.
at 22. Evidently, Utah either conflates the Central Hudson test and the test for the
issuance of a preliminary injunction, or assumes that the allocation of burdens
within this part of the Central Hudson test will shift as a consequence of the
case’s procedural posture.
Utah cites no authority in support of the notion that the Central Hudson
burden should shift away from the state, due to the procedural posture of this
case. However, we note that in its recent decision in Lorillard , the Supreme Court
mentioned the procedural posture of that case in evaluating whether the state had
met its evidentiary burden under the third part of Central Hudson . Lorillard in
part concerned whether the State of Massachusetts had adequately justified
regulations restricting the advertising of cigars and smokeless tobacco. The Court
stated:
Our review of the record reveals that the Attorney General has provided
ample documentation of the problem with underage use of smokeless
tobacco and cigars. In addition, we disagree with petitioners’ claim that
there is no evidence that preventing targeted campaigns and limiting
youth exposure to advertising will decrease underage use of smokeless
tobacco and cigars. On this record and in the posture of summary
judgment, we are unable to conclude that the Attorney General’s
decision to regulate advertising of smokeless tobacco and cigars in an
effort to combat the use of tobacco products by minors was based on
mere “speculation [and] conjecture.”
Lorillard , 121 S. Ct. at 2425 (citation omitted).
-21-
Despite its reference to a summary judgment proceeding, the Court clearly
viewed the Central Hudson burden as having remained on the state, despite
Lorillard ’s procedural posture. At most, the Court’s opinion suggests that
disputed evidence should be viewed in the favor of the nonmoving party. As a
consequence, we hold that the burden remains on Utah to justify its speech
restrictions. See also Bad Frog Brewery, Inc. v. New York State Liquor
Authority , 134 F.3d 87, 97-102 (2d Cir. 1998) ( Central Hudson analysis applied
without burden shifting, despite the fact that the brewery was appealing the denial
of its motion for summary judgment and for a preliminary injunction).
We now turn to our analysis of the third part of the Central Hudson test. In
order to justify any regulation of alcohol advertising, Utah must show that its
regulations directly and materially advance its substantial state interests. It has
identified two legitimate interests: temperance and the operation of a public
business.
With respect to temperance, we have carefully reviewed the evidence
presented by Utah concerning the relationship between temperance and alcohol
advertising. We note that while that evidence repeatedly warns of the dangers of
alcohol, and suggests that these dangers may be aggravated by alcohol
advertising, it makes virtually no distinction among different types of alcohol. In
fact, while Utah’s documents use the word “alcohol” dozens of times, see Aplt’s
-22-
App. at 140-57, they refer to only two studies regarding a particular type of
alcohol. Those studies point to the adverse effects of beer advertising. See id. at
150, 152. If the words “liquor” or “wine” appear anywhere in Utah’s evidence,
this court is unable to find them.
Utah’s evidence thus appears to prove only that there is a substantial state
interest in tempering the consumption of all types of alcohol, not just liquor and
wine. Following the analysis of Coors , this makes no rational sense if Utah’s true
aim is to suppress the social ills which its own evidence attributes to all types of
alcohol. See Coors , 514 U.S. at 488. Like the regulations struck down by the
Supreme Court in Greater New Orleans , the Utah statutes currently “distinguish[]
among the indistinct, permitting a variety of speech,” such as beer advertising,
“that poses the same risks the Government purports to fear, while banning
messages unlikely to cause any harm at all,” such as the posting of wine lists on
the outside of restaurants. See Greater New Orleans , 527 U.S. at 195. We
conclude that, with respect to the state’s interest in temperance, Utah’s present
scheme of advertising regulation must be considered irrational. It thus fails the
third part of Central Hudson .
Utah also cannot justify its advertising restrictions through its operation of
a public business in liquor sales, as Utah has presented no evidence supporting
the somewhat counterintuitive argument that advertising by liquor licensees poses
-23-
any threat to the operation of a public business. As the state itself declares,
Utah’s liquor licensees are intensely regulated. Utah states that liquor-related
“[s]ales and activities may only be conducted by individuals licensed by the State
to engage in those activities in accordance with the alcoholic beverage
distribution and marketing system”; that the state is the exclusive wholesale
dealer in liquor; and that it sets both the wholesale and retail prices at which
liquor may be sold. See Aple’s Br. at 14-15, 19; see also Utah Code Ann. § 32A-
5-107 (2000) (regulating business conduct of liquor licensees). As a
consequence, it must be presumed that no matter how much a liquor licensee
chose to advertise, it would still be forced to purchase its products from the state,
and sell them in the manner prescribed by the state.
We reiterate that Utah has the burden to prove both that liquor advertising
harms its substantial interest in operating a public business in alcohol sales, and
that its laws restricting liquor advertising will reduce any such harms to a material
degree. Its conclusory assertion that “[ULBA] do[es] not address the interests of
the State in its public business and its chosen marketing and sales provisions” is
insufficient to meet that burden. Aple’s Br. at 22. We hold that Utah’s public
business rationale also fails the third part of Central Hudson .
Finally, we turn to Utah’s alternate argument that its Twenty-first
Amendment authority, and its history of differential regulations of liquor and
-24-
beer, can justify its speech restrictions under the third part of Central Hudson .
See Aple’s Br. at 25-27. The plurality opinion of the Supreme Court in Part VI of
44 Liquormart stated that “[e]ven though government is under no obligation to
provide a person, or the public, a particular benefit, it does not follow that
conferral of the benefit may be conditioned on the surrender of a constitutional
right.” 44 Liquormart , 517 U.S. at 513. And, in Part VII , a majority of the Court
held that “the Twenty-first Amendment does not qualify the constitutional
prohibition against laws abridging the freedom of speech embodied in the First
Amendment.” Id. at 516. To permit Utah to abridge the commercial speech
rights of its liquor licensees as a condition of their licenses would constitute just
such a qualification of the First Amendment. Utah cannot therefore rely on its
Twenty-first Amendment powers to salvage its advertising restrictions.
4. Regulations “No More Restrictive Than Necessary”
Even if Utah’s regulations satisfied Central Hudson ’s third part–for
instance, if Utah’s scheme for regulating alcohol advertising did not draw
irrational distinctions among different types of alcohol–we conclude the
regulations fail the fourth part as well. In Lorillard , the Supreme Court
reaffirmed that a regulation of speech cannot be sustained unless there is evidence
that the state “‘carefully calculate[d] the costs and benefits associated with the
-25-
burden on speech imposed’ by the regulations.” Lorillard , 121 S. Ct. at 2425
(quoting Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc. , 507 U.S. 410, 417 (1993)); see
also Greater New Orleans , 527 U.S. at 188. There is no indication that Utah made
any careful calculation of the costs associated with its speech restrictions.
In addition, both Coors and 44 Liquormart suggest that where the state’s
legitimate interests may be promoted through methods that do not restrict speech,
those methods must be preferred over speech restrictions. In Coors , the Supreme
Court declared that “the availability of . . . options . . . which could advance the
Government’s asserted interest in a manner less intrusive to . . . First Amendment
rights, indicates that [the challenged statute] is more extensive than necessary.”
Coors , 514 U.S. at 491. And in 44 Liquormart , a plurality of the Court stated
that:
alternative forms of regulation that would not involve any restriction on
speech would be more likely to achieve the State’s goal of promoting
temperance. As the State’s own expert conceded, higher prices can be
maintained either by direct regulation or by increased taxation. Per
capita purchases could be limited as is the case with prescription drugs.
Even educational campaigns focused on the problems of excessive, or
even moderate, drinking might prove to be more effective.
44 Liquormart , 517 U.S. at 507 (plurality opinion) (citation omitted). Utah has
not shown that nonspeech regulations would be an ineffective means to
accomplish the ends it desires, or that its speech regulations are no more
extensive than necessary.
-26-
Lorillard , Greater New Orleans , Coors and 44 Liquormart therefore require
us to hold that Utah’s regulations fail the fourth part of the Central Hudson test. 5
IV. Other Elements Necessary To Warrant Preliminary Injunctive Relief
Because Utah’s regulations fail the Central Hudson test, ULBA has
established the first element necessary for an injunction, a substantial likelihood
that it will prevail on the merits. We now turn to the other elements that ULBA
must establish in order to obtain a preliminary injunction. See Country Kids , 77
F.3d at 1283 (discussing the elements necessary to warrant injunctive relief).
ULBA argues that it is presumptively suffering irreparable injury, the
second element, due to Utah’s deprivation of its First Amendment rights. See
Aplt’s Br. at 35-36, citing Elrod v. Burns , 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). Although
Elrod was not a Central Hudson commercial speech case, this presumption of
irreparable injury has been applied in commercial speech cases in other circuits.
5
Utah also asserts that its regulations are not a “virtual total ban” on
speech and should therefore be assessed differently. See Aple’s Br. at 29. In
U.S. West, we stated that even in the commercial speech context, a ban placing
only partial limits on speech is nevertheless subject to the same standard of First
Amendment review that would be applied to a complete ban. See U.S. West, 182
F.3d at 1232 (“[T]he existence of alternative channels of communication . . . does
not eliminate the fact that the . . . regulations restrict speech.”); see also United
States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 812 (2000) (stating
that in the context of strict scrutiny, “[t]he distinction between laws burdening
and laws banning speech is but a matter of degree.”). Utah’s regulations still
burden speech, even if they fall short of being a “virtual total ban.”
-27-
See , e.g. , Nordyke v. Santa Clara County , 110 F.3d 707, 710 (9th Cir. 1997);
International Dairy Foods Ass’n v. Amestoy , 92 F.3d 67, 71 (2d Cir. 1996). We
agree with ULBA that it is proper for us to assume irreparable injury due to the
deprivation of ULBA’s commercial speech rights.
With respect to the third element of the test for a preliminary injunction, we
hold that the First Amendment injury to ULBA outweighs any prospective injury
to Utah if an injunction were granted. Utah has introduced some evidence that
advertising might increase alcohol consumption. See (III)(B)(3), supra . But even
that evidence was contradicted by ULBA’s submissions. See id. Because we
concluded in our Central Hudson analysis that Utah’s regulatory scheme is
irrational, and hence unlikely to achieve its goals, there is no reason to think that
Utah will be harmed more than ULBA if the advertising restrictions are enjoined.
In the meantime, Utah unquestionably retains the power to attack alcohol-related
problems through methods that do not restrict speech.
Finally, we come to the fourth element, whether an injunction would be
adverse to the public interest. In A.C.L.U. v. Johnson , we held that an injunction
that would block an unconstitutional New Mexico regulation of the Internet would
not be “adverse to the public interest[,] as it will protect the free expression of the
millions of Internet users both within and outside of the State of New Mexico.”
Johnson , 194 F.3d at 1163. Because we have held that Utah’s challenged statutes
-28-
also unconstitutionally limit free speech, we conclude that enjoining their
enforcement is an appropriate remedy not adverse to the public interest. See also
Elam Constr., Inc. v. Regional Transp. Dist. , 129 F.3d 1343, 1347 (10th Cir.
1997) (stating, in the context of a request for injunctive relief, that “[t]he public
interest . . . favors plaintiffs’ assertion of their First Amendment rights.”).
CONCLUSION
One additional statement by the Supreme Court is especially pertinent to
our holding today:
Advertising, however tasteless and excessive it sometimes may seem,
is nonetheless dissemination of information as to who is producing and
selling what product, for what reason, and at what price. So long as we
preserve a predominantly free enterprise economy, the allocation of our
resources in large measure will be made through numerous private
economic decisions. It is a matter of public interest that those
decisions, in the aggregate, be intelligent and well informed. To this
end, the free flow of commercial information is indispensable. And if
it is indispensable to the proper allocation of resources in a free
enterprise system, it is also indispensable to the formation of intelligent
opinions as to how that system ought to be regulated or altered.
Therefore, even if the First Amendment were thought to be primarily an
instrument to enlighten public decisionmaking in a democracy, we could
not say that the free flow of information does not serve that goal.
Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. , 425
U.S. 748, 765 (1976) (citations and footnotes omitted).
The judgment of the district court is REVERSED. The case is
REMANDED to the district court with instructions to ENJOIN the State of Utah
-29-
from enforcing Utah Code Ann. §§ 32A-12-401(2) and 32A-12-401(4). The
district court is also instructed to ENJOIN the enforcement of Utah Code Ann. §
32A-12-104, to the extent that the enforcement of § 32A-12-104 conflicts with
our holding in this case. The court may conduct further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
-30-