In Case 5-4, the Court had to balance government interests in energy efficiency, as well as fair and efficient pricing, with the conflicting constitutional value of Central Hudson’s right to free...

In Case 5-4, the Court had to balance government interests in energy efficiency, as well as fair and efficient pricing, with the conflicting constitutional value of Central Hudson’s right to free commercial speech. Having affirmed the validity of government’s substantial interests in regulating the utility company, the Court sought to determine whether these interests could have been sufficiently served with more limited restrictions. Because this determination is of central importance to the Court’s reversal of the earlier court’s judgment, it will be the focus of the questions that follow.

1. What primary ethical norm is implicit in the legal requirement that regulations on commercial speech be of the most limited nature possible in carrying out the desired end of advancing the state’s substantial interest? Clue: Review the four primary ethical norms. You want to focus not on the government regulation but on the rationale for limits on that regulation.

 2. What information missing from the Court’s opinion must you, as a critical thinker, know before being entirely satisfied with the decision? Clue: You want to focus on the issue about which the Public Service Commission and Central Hudson have conflicting viewpoints. What information would you want to know before accepting the soundness of the Court’s judgment in resolving this conflict?