440 U.S. 1 (1979)
Friedman v. Rogers is a landmark United States Supreme Court case that addressed the extent to which the government can regulate professional practices in the interest of public health and welfare without infringing on the First Amendment rights related to commercial speech.
Does a state law prohibiting the use of trade names in the practice of optometry violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech?
The state government may regulate commercial speech if it serves a substantial state interest, directly advances that interest, and is not more extensive than necessary to serve that interest.
The Supreme Court held that the prohibition of trade names was a permissible regulation of commercial speech and did not violate the First Amendment.
Friedman v. Rogers is significant for highlighting the limitations of the First Amendment's protection of commercial speech and demonstrating the Court's support for state efforts to regulate professional practices to protect consumer welfare. Law students studying this case gain insight into how the Court balances state interests with Constitutional freedoms, especially in commercial contexts where deceptive practices can adversely impact public health and safety.