A federal statute bans all commercial advertising of red meat to reduce cancer, but does not ban sale. Courts likely hold:

• A. It is unconstitutional because it restricts the sale of red meat.
• B. It is unconstitutional because it is more extensive than necessary to serve the government interest.
• C. It is constitutional because it serves a substantial public health interest.
• D. It is constitutional because commercial speech is unprotected.

Answer: (B)

This tests how the First Amendment protects commercial speech and the Central Hudson framework for regulating it. Even though promoting public health is a substantial goal, a regulation must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal. Banning all commercial advertising of a legal product—while still allowing its sale—goes well beyond what’s necessary. It suppresses truthful, non-misleading ads and forecloses speech that could inform consumer choices, and there are less restrictive means to advance health aims (such as prohibiting false advertising, requiring disclosures, or restricting ads in certain contexts). Because the measure is more extensive than required to serve the interest, it fails the Central Hudson test and is unconstitutional. Note that commercial speech is protected rather than unprotected, so the option based on unprotected speech is incorrect.