Borgner v. Florida Board of Dentistry
The Supreme Court declined to hear a Florida dentist's challenge to a state law requiring him to print government-scripted disclaimers whenever he advertised his implant-dentistry credentials, leaving a lower-court ruling upholding the law in place.
Two justices dissented from the denial, arguing the case was a strong vehicle for clarifying how far states can go in dictating the exact wording businesses and professionals must use in their own advertising.
How it got here: A federal trial court ruled for the dentist; the Eleventh Circuit reversed and upheld Florida's disclaimer law; the dentist asked the Supreme Court to review, which it declined.
The Case in Depth
What happened
A Florida dentist who specializes in implants advertised his membership and credentials with a national implant-dentistry organization not recognized by the American Dental Association or Florida's dental board. Florida law required him to add specific, state-written disclaimers stating that his specialty and certifying organization were not state-approved whenever he referenced them in ads, business cards, or letterhead.
The question before the Court
Could Florida force a dentist to attach a state-written warning label every time he mentioned his implant-dentistry credentials in ads?
Why it matters
Because the Court didn't take the case, Florida's disclaimer law stands, and the dentist must keep using the state's required wording or drop mention of his credentials. The episode leaves unresolved, nationwide, how specific a government can get when forcing professionals to add disclaimers to their advertising.
What changes now
Because certiorari was denied, the Eleventh Circuit's ruling upholding Florida's disclaimer law remains final and binding on the dentist and others in that circuit. The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the First Amendment question, so the broader issue of how specific state-mandated advertising disclaimers can be remains open for future cases to resolve.
What this does not decide
A denial of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits — it does not mean the Supreme Court agreed with the Eleventh Circuit's reasoning or endorsed Florida's disclaimer requirement. It only means the Court chose not to review the case, leaving the lower court's decision in place without addressing the constitutional questions raised.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Thomas
“the only possible constitutional justification for this speech regulation is defeated”Thomas warns that a confusing disclaimer would undercut the state's rationale for requiring it.
Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Ginsburg, argued the Court should have granted review because the case offered a clean opportunity to clarify commercial-speech law and the limits on government-mandated disclaimers. He questioned the reliability of the surveys Florida used, argued the disclaimer might be so extensive it effectively barred mentioning the credential at all, and warned the required wording could confuse consumers rather than protect them.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- Because this is an order denying certiorari rather than a decision on the merits, there is no majority reasoning chain to summarize; the Court simply declined to review the case.
- The dissenting justices argued the lower appeals court may have misapplied the four-part commercial-speech test from Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, which asks whether speech is misleading, whether the government has a substantial interest, whether the regulation actually advances that interest, and whether it is no broader than necessary.
- The dissent questioned whether the surveys Florida used to justify the disclaimer requirement were reliable enough to satisfy the test's requirement that the state show real evidence its restriction addresses an actual problem.
- The dissent also argued the required disclaimer might be so detailed that it effectively bars mentioning the credential at all on things like business cards, which could mean the rule was broader than necessary to serve the state's interest.
- The dissent further suggested the mandated wording could itself confuse consumers into thinking a legitimate professional organization was fraudulent, undermining the very justification for requiring the disclaimer.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of N. Y. (447 U.S. 557)
The dissent treats this four-part commercial-speech test as the applicable framework the lower court should have properly applied.
Distinguishes Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel (471 U.S. 626)
The dissent says this case, which allowed a disclaimer for misleading ads, doesn't support Florida's mandatory scripted disclaimer here.