October Term 2009 · Docket 08-1119

Can Congress ban truthful bankruptcy ads?

Law firms argue a federal law bans truthful speech. The government says the law targets fraud.

Official caption
Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Brunstad argued the law is unconstitutional. He said it bans truthful information about lawful activity.

    Mr. Jay argued the statute has a safe harbor. He stated using specific language avoids legal problems.

    Mr. Brunstad argued the law harms clients. He claimed it creates an impossible situation for attorneys.

    Mr. Jay defined a debt relief agency. He described it as a person providing services for pay.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests a federal bankruptcy statute. It restricts what debt relief agencies can say. The firms claim the law is unconstitutional. The government defends the statute's validity.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 1, 2009.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The firms want the law struck down. They seek to advertise lawful services freely.

The government wants the law upheld. It aims to stop misleading consumer ads.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The firms argue the law bans truthful speech. They claim it creates impossible compliance standards.

The government argues the law targets fraud. It asserts the statute protects consumers.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Ginsburg asked why the phrase has meaning in one section but not another.

Justice Kennedy asked if Congress could pass a narrower statute to ban improper advice.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the limits of commercial speech. It determines how agencies advertise legal services. It balances consumer protection against free expression.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON