Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

Ninth Circuit: Prop 65 Warnings Can Count As Compelled Speech

by March 29, 2024
March 29, 2024
Ninth Circuit: Prop 65 Warnings Can Count As Compelled Speech

Walter Olson

Under the Supreme Court’s commercial speech jurisprudence, businesspeople do not check their First Amendment rights at the gate when they enter the marketplace. In a significant application of this principle, a panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in November that California may be barred from requiring businesses to “disclose” through labeling scientifically dubious and misleading allegations about their products. 

The case arose under California’s unique and burdensome Proposition 65, which I’ve written about many times. Prop 65 requires merchants to post warnings, on labels or public spaces at their business, against product exposures that could cause cancer or birth defects, a list that at various times has included such things as candles, fireplace logs, coffee, French fries, Christmas lights, hammers, billiard cue chalk, matches, grilled chicken, life‐​saving drugs, brass doorknobs, car exhaust in parking garages, and on and on. “Practically speaking,” the law firm Sidley has noted, “Prop 65 creates an ‘over‐​warning’ problem: The law requires warnings for so many products and situations that the warnings themselves become meaningless.” The law is jealously guarded, though, because most of the money from the resulting settlements goes to the lawyers, who form a potent Sacramento lobby against reform.

The dispute at hand arose because California law requires that a warning appear if a substance has appeared as probably cancer‐​causing on the list of the International Agency for the Research on Cancer (IARC), and that list includes the herbicide glyphosate, the subject of a huge volume of litigation in recent years. Significantly, both the federal EPA and California’s own environment agency have studied the issue and reached a different conclusion: glyphosate appears to be safe for humans. Agricultural groups sued to enjoin the state from enforcing the rule, resulting in the recent ruling in National Association of Wheat Growers v. Bonta.

The Supreme Court has laid out two levels of scrutiny for compelled commercial speech. The lower of the two levels, the so‐​called Zauderer standard, provides that when a required label or other speech is “purely factual and uncontroversial” in its content, it need only be “reasonably related” to a substantial government interest and not “unjustified or unduly burdensome.” That’s a concession to the large volume of relatively uncontroversial labeling on matters like weights and measures, ingredient lists, nutritional content, and so forth. Regulators usually win under that standard. In cases where the content of the compelled speech is controversial or not purely factual, however, intermediate level scrutiny applies (the so‐​called Central Hudson standard) in which case the rules must “directly advance” a “substantial” governmental interest, with the means chosen not being “more extensive than necessary.”

Two of the panel’s three judges found that glyphosate disclosure would inevitably flunk intermediate scrutiny; the district court had said that statements about glyphosate could not be deemed “factual” if they are false, nor would such publication advance a substantial governmental interest. On appeal, the dissenting judge on the panel would have sent the case back to see whether there might not be ways to couch a label carefully so as to fulfill the legal requirement without asserting anything non‐​factual.

National Association of Wheat Growers v. Bonta is unlikely to spell a revolution in regulation, so long as agencies pay attention to what is factual and what is not in the speech they require. The endless list of putative hazards under Prop 65, however, does include more than a few products and substances for which a court might find a required warning of cancer or birth defects to be absurdly misleading or non‐​factual. That’s yet another reason a rational California legislature would revisit, and roll back, this bad law.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
The Fourth Bitcoin Halving Is Upon Us: Is Now the Time to Go Long?
next post
More on Free Trade’s “Pro-Poor Bias”

You may also like

The Whole DEI “Project Is a McCarthyite Witch...

May 1, 2025

The STRIP Act Is a Good Step in the...

June 14, 2023

The Eighth Circuit Should Block SEC’s Illegal Climate...

June 25, 2024

New Defending Globalization Content: The Conservative and Progressive...

May 30, 2024

The American Right Is Abandoning Mises

March 13, 2025

The U.S. Experience in Colombia Is a Terrible...

September 11, 2023

SNAP and Obesity

May 3, 2023

Oregon Lawmakers Roll back New Drug War Strategy...

March 2, 2024

Biden’s New Sanctions are Unlikely to Meet His...

February 23, 2024

Happy Yeltsin Supermarket Day!

September 16, 2024

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Snub of Musk’s NASA nominee ally preceded sudden ‘big, beautiful bill’ criticism, Trump feud

      June 6, 2025
    • Supreme Court rules DOGE can access Social Security information

      June 6, 2025
    • US sanctions money laundering network aiding Iran as regime faces nuclear reprimand at IAEA

      June 6, 2025
    • From Tariffs to Tech: Where Smart Money’s Moving Right Now

      June 6, 2025
    • Your Weekly Stock Market Snapshot: What It Means for Your Investments

      June 6, 2025
    • Getting It Half-Baked: The Real Cause of Cannabis Market Failures

      June 6, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,149)
    • Investing (2,019)
    • Politics (15,555)
    • Stocks (3,134)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved