Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jared Andrews (talk | contribs) at 05:52, 31 January 2020 (Fixed Infobox.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
This article needs attention from an expert in Law, United States Supreme Court or Freedom of Speech. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. WikiProject Law, WikiProject United States Supreme Court or WikiProject Freedom of Speech may be able to help recruit an expert. (March 2015) |
Pacific Gas & Electric v. Public Utilities Commission | |
---|---|
Argued October 8, 1985 Decided February 25, 1986 | |
Full case name | Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California et al. |
Citations | 475 U.S. 1 (more) 106 S. Ct. 903; 89 L. Ed. 2d 1; 1986 U.S. LEXIS 1 |
Holding | |
A private publisher cannot be forced to carry messages inconsistent with its views. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Plurality | Powell, joined by Burger, Brennan, O'Connor |
Concurrence | Burger |
Concurrence | Marshall (in judgment) |
Dissent | Rehnquist, joined by White, Stevens (part I only) |
Dissent | Stevens |
Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. I |
Pacific Gas & Electric v. Public Utilities Commission, 475 U.S. 1 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the requirement that San Francisco-based public utility Pacific Gas and Electric Company carry a message supplied by a public interest group in rebuttal to the messages the utility supplied in its newsletter which it placed in its billing envelope.
The rationale used by the regulatory agency was that the space in the billing envelope which could have material added that did not increase postage belonged to the ratepayers rather than the utility; thus the commission could order the utility to allow other groups to use that space subject to restrictions.
The U.S. Supreme Court found the order of the California Public Utilities Commission to be unconstitutional, as the right to speak includes the right not to carry messages one disagrees with. As the court stated, "the choice to speak includes within it the choice of what not to say."
This is one of the cases which has essentially granted, with very limited exceptions, the absolute right of a publisher to choose not to carry messages it does not agree with.
See also
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (1983)
- Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (2007)
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 475
External links
- {{caselaw source
| case = Pacific Gas & Electric v. Public Utilities Commission, 475 U.S. 1 (1986) | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/475/1/ | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep475/usrep475001/usrep475001.pdf | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1044
This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
- Articles needing expert attention with no reason or talk parameter
- Articles needing expert attention from March 2015
- All articles needing expert attention
- Law articles needing expert attention
- Miscellaneous articles needing expert attention
- Articles with short description
- Short description matches Wikidata
- All stub articles