Free Essays on Case Briefing

Anheuser- Busch, Inc., v. Schmoke, Mayor of Baltimore City, 63 F.3d 1305 (1995) United States Court of Appeals FACTS In January 1994, Baltimore exercised the authority granted it by the State and enacted Ordinance 288 prohibiting the outdoor advertising of alcoholic beverages in certain locations of Baltimore City. It also includes an exception permitting advertising in certain commercially and industrially zoned areas. The City Council of Baltimore is basing its ban on the premise that children are exposed to the advertising of alcoholic beverages â€Å"simply by walking to school or playing in their neighborhood†. The City goes on to state that children’s â€Å"attitudes are favorable to alcohol and are significantly related to their exposure to alcohol advertisements†. Anheuser-Busch argues that the purpose of its advertising is to â€Å"solidify brand loyalty and increase market share by shifting adult beer drinkers from other brands to the advertised brand of beer†. On January 14, 1994, filed suit in federal court, challenging the ordinance under the First Amen dment. ISSUE Is Baltimore City violating Anheuser-Busch’s First Amendment rights? Holding Niemeyer, Circuit Judge The court held the ordinance constitutional after concluding that â€Å"it directly advances the City’s asserted interest in promoting the welfare and temperance of minors† and is â€Å"narrowly tailored† to that end. We do not believe that the liquor industry spends a million dollars a year on advertising solely to acquire an added market share at the expense of competitors. We hold, as a matter of law, that prohibitions against the advertising of alcoholic beverages are reasonably related to reducing the sale and consumption of those beverages and their attendant problems. It is readily acknowledged that limitations on outdoor advertising of alcoholic beverages designed to protect minors also reduce the opportunities for adults to receive... Free Essays on Case Briefing Free Essays on Case Briefing Anheuser- Busch, Inc., v. Schmoke, Mayor of Baltimore City, 63 F.3d 1305 (1995) United States Court of Appeals FACTS In January 1994, Baltimore exercised the authority granted it by the State and enacted Ordinance 288 prohibiting the outdoor advertising of alcoholic beverages in certain locations of Baltimore City. It also includes an exception permitting advertising in certain commercially and industrially zoned areas. The City Council of Baltimore is basing its ban on the premise that children are exposed to the advertising of alcoholic beverages â€Å"simply by walking to school or playing in their neighborhood†. The City goes on to state that children’s â€Å"attitudes are favorable to alcohol and are significantly related to their exposure to alcohol advertisements†. Anheuser-Busch argues that the purpose of its advertising is to â€Å"solidify brand loyalty and increase market share by shifting adult beer drinkers from other brands to the advertised brand of beer†. On January 14, 1994, filed suit in federal court, challenging the ordinance under the First Amen dment. ISSUE Is Baltimore City violating Anheuser-Busch’s First Amendment rights? Holding Niemeyer, Circuit Judge The court held the ordinance constitutional after concluding that â€Å"it directly advances the City’s asserted interest in promoting the welfare and temperance of minors† and is â€Å"narrowly tailored† to that end. We do not believe that the liquor industry spends a million dollars a year on advertising solely to acquire an added market share at the expense of competitors. We hold, as a matter of law, that prohibitions against the advertising of alcoholic beverages are reasonably related to reducing the sale and consumption of those beverages and their attendant problems. It is readily acknowledged that limitations on outdoor advertising of alcoholic beverages designed to protect minors also reduce the opportunities for adults to receive...