In Friedman et al. v. Rogers et al., the U.S Supreme Court upheld a Texas law that prohibited optometrists from practicing under a trade name, ruling it did not violate their First Amendment rights to free speech or Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. The court found that the state had an interest in maintaining professional standards among optometrists and ensuring consumers were not misled by deceptive trade names. It also ruled that while commercial speech was protected by the First Amendment, this did not extend to using potentially misleading trade names in advertising services.

In the dissenting opinion for Friedman et al. v. Rogers et al., Justice William J. Brennan Jr., joined by Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall, argued that the Texas law prohibiting optometrists from practicing under a trade name violated their First Amendment rights to commercial speech. The majority had upheld this law on grounds of preventing deceptive or misleading practices in advertising, but Brennan contended that there were less restrictive means available to achieve this goal without infringing upon free speech rights - such as requiring disclaimers or disclosures in advertisements rather than banning trade names outright. He also disagreed with the majority's view that professional services are inherently unsuitable for trade name usage, pointing out many other professions use them without issue.