Facts of the case: Coors Brewing Co.

(Coors) applied to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms for an approval of proposed labels. The approval was rejected because it violated
the Federal Alcohol Administration Acts (FAAA) prohibition of disclosing the alcohol content
on beer labels or advertisements. Coors filed a claim arguing the regulation violated the
First Amendments protection of commercial speech. The government argued the regulation
was necessary to prevent strength wars among brewers, which in this case, refers to
breweries competing on the basis of the potency of their alcohol.
The district court found in favor of Coors, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
reversed the judgment and remanded the case back to the district court. The district court
subsequently upheld the ban of alcohol content in advertising, but not on labels. The
government appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the lower court by
concluding that the label ban did not prevent strength wars.
Issue: Does the Federal Alcohol Administration Acts prohibition of displaying alcohol content
on beer labels violate the First Amendments protection of commercial speech?
Conclusion:Yes. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion for the 9-0 majority. The
Court held that for the government to regulate commercial speech, the government must
have a substantial interest that the regulation directly affects. In this case, the interest the
government intended to protect by banning the display of alcohol content on beer labels was
to limit the strength wars of competing beer companies, which could lead to greater
alcoholism. However, the Court concluded that this interest was not substantial enough,
since there was no reason to believe that banning the alcoholic content on beer labels would
prevent such social harms. The regulation also does not directly advance the suppression of
strength wars, especially since other provisions of the FAAA directly counteract its effects.
Finally, the Court held the regulation was more extensive than necessary, since there were
available and effective alternatives that would not violate the First Amendment.
Justice John Paul Stevens delivered a concurring opinion emphasizing the regulation is
unconstitutionality of the regulation because it did not increase consumer awareness, but
instead blinded the public to the truth of the alcohol content.