The Supreme Court rejected an appeal yesterday from the Richmond Federal Appeals Court addressing a regulation issued by the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission banning advertisements for alcoholic beverages in college newspapers. The decision of the appeals court, which upheld the regulation as constitutional, was contested by the American Civil Liberties Union, which submitted the case to the Supreme Court.

The regulation forbids public and private Virginia college newspapers from publishing advertisements for alcoholic beverages, as well as printing certain words, such as “happy hour” and names of mixed drinks.

“The ABC Board promulgates regulations to carry out the provisions of the [Alcoholic Beverage Control Act] and to prevent illegal manufacture, sale, distribution and transportation of alcoholic beverages,” ABC spokesperson Jennifer Farinholt said.

The Collegiate Times and The Cavalier Daily challenged the ban in 2008, and the Virginia district courts ruled in their favor and found the regulation unconstitutional. The decision was appealed and then reversed by the appeals courts in Richmond.

“It’s unfortunate the Supreme Court decided not to take the case, especially with Samuel Alito, who, when he served in the appeals courts, ruled in favor of a newspaper in a similar case in Pennsylvania,” said Peter Velz, editor-in-chief of the Collegiate Times, Virginia Tech’s student newspaper. “We are optimistic, however, because the case has been remanded to the district court. The ban still lacks merit, and we will continue to fight.”

Rebecca Glenberg, legal director of the ACLU of Virginia, said the regulation is unconstitutional — for the government to regulate commercial speech, it must show that the ban directly and materially advances the interests of the government. In this case, the government claimed its interest is controlling underage drinking and binge drinking at universities, but the ACLU argues that there is no evidence that precluding alcohol advertisements from college newspapers is effective at achieving this goal.

“It discriminates against a narrow segment of the media, and even if the regulations are deemed constitutional at face value, they’re unconstitutional as specifically applied to The Cavalier Daily and the Collegiate Times because they have a readership primarily over the age of 21,” Glenberg said.

The case will return to district courts, where the ACLU will argue that the regulation unfairly discriminates against student newspapers and that because the specific readerships of The Cavalier Daily and the Collegiate Times are older than 21, the ban is not effective at furthering the interests of the government.