CRN Completes Briefing Seeking Supreme Court Review of Challenge Against NY Age Restriction Law

In the latest development in the Council for Responsible Nutrition’s legal challenge against a New York state law banning minors from purchasing dietary supplements for muscle building or weight loss, the association has filed a cert petition reply brief.

The brief responds to the State of New York’s opposition to CRN’s petition for a writ of certiorari, the main mechanism used by the Supreme Court to determine which cases it will hear.

The filing argues that Supreme Court review is necessary to resolve significant First Amendment questions affecting businesses, since the prohibition is based solely on how “muscle building” or “weight loss” supplements are labeled, marketed, or otherwise represented.

In its reply brief, CRN argues that the Second Circuit’s decision weakens longstanding protections for commercial speech by allowing restrictions based on speculation rather than evidence. The association argues that the appellate court “improperly accepted the Legislature’s use of product marketing as a proxy for harm without requiring proof that restricting truthful marketing claims would directly reduce the harms the State identified.”

The filing contends that the Second Circuit departed from precedent by deferring to legislative judgment instead of requiring the State to demonstrate that alternatives which didn’t restrict speech to the same extent would be insufficient. This decision will “deepen existing disagreements among federal courts” about criteria under which governments can restrict truthful commercial speech.

“Our reply brief makes clear that this case is not about whether states may protect minors from genuinely dangerous products; it is about whether the government may regulate truthful speech without demonstrating that doing so actually advances public health,” said Megan Olsen, general counsel at CRN. “The Second Circuit’s decision allows legislative assumptions to substitute for constitutional scrutiny, weakening First Amendment protections that have governed commercial speech for decades. We believe the Supreme Court should take this opportunity to reaffirm that governments must rely on evidence, not speculation, when they seek to burden truthful communications about lawful products.”

Ultimately, the brief emphasizes that New York’s state law regulates speech, rather than product safety, by using marketing claims as a trigger for age restriction without demonstrating that those restrictions reduce harm. Allowing such an approach could encourage similar speech-based regulations around other lawful products in numerous industries, CRN argued. Several other associations have filed amicus briefs on this case due to First Amendment concerns, including the Taxpayers Protection Alliance Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the Pacific Legal Foundation, and others.

The certiorari briefing is now complete, and the Supreme Court will determine in the coming months whether it will hear the case.