The U.S. Supreme Court case Robert E. Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury v. Coors Brewing Company in 1994 revolved around a federal regulation that prohibited beer labels from displaying alcohol content. The Coors Brewing Company challenged this law, arguing it violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech by preventing them from providing factual information about their products to consumers. The government defended the ban on grounds that it would discourage "strength wars" among brewers who might seek to compete based on high alcohol levels rather than taste or quality. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Coors Brewing Company stating that while preventing strength wars was a substantial interest, there were other ways for the government to achieve this without violating free speech rights such as directly limiting alcohol content in beers or implementing stricter labeling requirements.

In the case of Robert E. Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury v. Coors Brewing Company, Justice Stevens was the only dissenting voice. He argued that Congress had a rational basis for prohibiting beer labels from displaying alcohol content as it could potentially lead to 'strength wars' among brewers and encourage increased alcohol consumption. He believed that this prohibition did not violate First Amendment rights because commercial speech can be regulated if there is a substantial government interest at stake, which in this case was public health and safety concerns related to excessive drinking. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that alternative means should have been considered by Congress before resorting to such restrictions on free speech.