In the case of Board of Trustees of the State University of New York v. Fox, 1988, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of a university policy that limited commercial activities on campus. The issue arose when Jeanne Fox and other students at SUNY Albany were prevented from hosting a Tupperware party in their dormitory due to this policy. They argued that it violated their First Amendment rights by restricting commercial speech without serving any substantial government interest. However, the court held that while restrictions on commercial speech must serve a significant governmental interest and be no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest, they do not need to be as narrowly tailored as non-commercial content-based restrictions or least restrictive means for achieving desired objectives. Therefore, SUNY's regulation was found constitutional because it served its purpose reasonably well even if there might have been alternative methods available.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Board of Trustees of the State University of New York v. Fox, Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun, argued that commercial speech should be protected to a greater extent than what was proposed in the majority's decision. They contended that restrictions on such speech should only be allowed if they directly serve substantial government interests and do so in a narrowly tailored way. The justices believed that this standard had not been met in this case as there were alternative means available to achieve these goals without infracment upon First Amendment rights. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s assertion that it is permissible for regulation to extend beyond its precise target where necessary; instead arguing any incidental restriction on constitutionally protected speech must be no greater than essential.