Board of Trustees of State University of New York v. Fox

Board of Trustees of State University of New York v. Fox
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 22, 1989 Decided June 29, 1989
Full case name	Board of Trustees of State University of New York v. Fox
Citations	492 U.S. 469 (more)
Prior history	Cert. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Argument	Oral argument
Holding
Instructed a lower court to reevaluate the compatibility of a resolution of the State University of New York that prohibited private commercial enterprises from operating in SUNY facilities with the First Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices William J. Brennan, Jr. · Byron White Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Case opinions
Majority	Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, White, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy
Dissent	Blackmun, joined by Brennan, Marshall

Board of Trustees of State University of New York v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469 (1989), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court instructed a lower court to reevaluate the compatibility of a resolution of the State University of New York that prohibited private commercial enterprises from operating in SUNY facilities with the First Amendment.^[1] The Court instructed the lower court to use the standard outlined in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission and determine whether the restriction on speech advanced the state's interest and, if so, whether the state's method was the least restrictive means to that end. ^[1]

References

1. Board of Trustees, State Univ. of N. Y. v. Fox, Opinion United States Supreme Court, "Viewing the challenged application of the resolution as a restriction on commercial speech, and therefore applying the test articulated in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm'n of New York, 447 U.S. 557, the Court of Appeals concluded that it was unclear whether the resolution directly advanced the State's asserted interests and whether, if it did, it was the least restrictive means to that end. The court therefore reversed and remanded to the trial court."