The college newspapers at two of Virginia's largest and most distinguished universities, The Collegiate Times at Virginia Tech, and The Cavalier Daily at the University of Virginia, filed this action alleging that certain regulations of Virginia's Alcohol Beverage Control Board were unconstitutional. The Board's regulations prohibit advertisements for beer, wine, or mixed beverages unless the ads are in reference to a dining establishment, for any "college student publication." The definition of "college student publication" clearly implicates both newspapers. The newspapers alleged that the ban causes each paper to lose approximately $30,000 per year in potential advertising revenue, and that the ban violates their First Amendment Rights. The Federal District Court agreed with the college newspapers, finding the regulation unconstitutional on its face, and issued an injunction preventing enforcement of the regulation.

The Alcohol Beverage Control Board appealed to the Fourth Circuit and obtained a reversal in this April 9th Opinion. In doing so, the Fourth Circuit applied the four part analysis established by the U.S. Supreme Court for commercial speech cases in Central Hudson. (1) Is the speech protected by the First Amendment; (2) Does the government have a "substantial" interest which justifies the regulation; (3) Does the regulation directly advance that government interest; and (4) Is the regulation "not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest."

The Court quickly determined that the commercial speech at issue (advertisement of alcoholic beverages) concerned activity (buying and consuming alcoholic beverages) that is legal, for at least some of the audience, and the advertising was assumed not to be misleading. Therefore, the advertisement is indeed entitled to some First Amendment protection.

The Court noted just as easily that the Alcohol Beverage Control Board has a substantial interest in combating the serious problems of both underage drinking, and abusive drinking amongst college students.

The Court next addressed whether the ban directly and materially advances the Board's stated interest. In proving this element, the Court observed that the government's interest need not be linked to the action by empirical evidence, but can rely on history, consensus, or even common sense. It may not, however, be irrational or contrary to actual data. The Court found that the fact that the college newspapers specifically target an audience of college students, and alcohol vendors want to advertise in the student publications, that there is evidence of a link between the ban and the government's purpose, and the newspapers did not provide evidence specifically contradicting the same.

Finally, the Court noted that in a commercial speech setting, the government regulations need not be the least restrictive means, but only "narrowly drawn" to fit the government's interest. The Court determined that the Board's regulations were in fact narrowly tailored since they prohibit only certain types of alcohol advertising (those not associated with dining), and only apply to "college student publications" not all publications that may be on campus.

Therefore, the Court determined that Virginia's Alcohol Beverage Control Board instituted the regulation and narrowly tailored it to directly advance a substantial government interest; it does not run afoul of the Central Hudson analysis, and is not an unconstitutional prohibition on commercial speech.