United States v. Wenger

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, in the context of securities fraud, “[g]ood faith reliance on counsel . . . is merely one factor a jury may consider when determining whether a defendant acted willfully”
• concluding that requirement that publicists disclose the amount of consideration they are receiving “impose[s] little burden on speech” as it “takes only a slight effort to tell one’s listeners or readers” that they have been paid for the publication or broadcast
• “It is undisputed that the government has an interest in protecting consumers from being misled.”
• quoted Justice Stevens’s line from 44 Liquormart but included no additional language suggesting a same-sovereign requirement; the case did not turn on such a requirement
• “While disinterested investment advice will still qualify for full First Amendment protection, paid publicists’ speech is grounded in commercial transactions of the kind that the state has traditionally regulated.”
• applying Zauderer to compelled disclosure in newsletter and radio program

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).