DESPERATELY SEEKING COHERENCE: THE LOWER COURTS STRUGGLE TO DETERMINE THE MEANING OF SORRELL FOR THE COMMERCIAL SPEECH DOCTRINE.

In its most recent major commercial-speech case, Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court implied that commercial speech could thenceforth be considered nothing more than a protected viewpoint - rather than a component of contractual offerings between seller and buyer. The opinion has been called "incoherent" and "a Pandora's Box of First Amendment challenges." This study finds the efforts of lower courts to address a rapidly growing body of Sorrell-grounded claims have only begun to bring the nature of the ruling's impact on commercial-speech doctrine into focus. While it is not yet possible to reconcile the array of approaches and emphases asserted by various lower courts, the stark disagreement between two panels of appellate judges in the Ninth Circuit may represent an opportunity for the Supreme Court to provide clarification. Despite the ongoing debate among lower courts, a number of laws have been struck down that, but for Sorrell, would have remained on the books today. As this article documents, Sorrell's reach has already extended the doctrine breathtakingly far beyond the more limited understanding of what not so long ago comprised the outer boundaries of commercial speech. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]