Sample Admission Essay on Memo

Regarding the case between Keep It Civil and Bunkers, in the issue of the signage on the highway and the Business locations, there are state laws that need to be considered to better understand the chances of the two parties. In the previous cases such as the Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp, which focused on the case of banning promotional advertising by electrical utility and its relation to their “free speech” right, the following laws were applied to solve the case.

Central Hudson Gas and electric Corp Case Scenario

The Appellee (the Commission) ordered the Appellant (Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp) to cease all their promotional advertising since they encouraged the consumers to use more energy which there was not enough in the state to cater for the public’s winter needs. According to the policy statement, an advertisement is categorized into two: promotional advertising that stimulated the consumers to purchase the goods or services of the firm and the institutional and informational advertising which focuses on marketing the firm’s products not necessarily to promote sales. In Bunkers case, the form of advertising in both the highway and business location signage is intended to increase sales by calling on the customers.

Bunker’s Place Vs Keep It Civil

In our current case, the appellee seeks to have a new law to prohibit the advertisement of Bunkers, since the business goes against the morals that shape the values of the people of Nirvana. It’s a great concern to the appellee that the firm did not indicate that children below the legal age are prohibited to attend the place, as well as encouraging truck traffic to divert to the place that passes through a residential area. The firm not only affects the moral values but also the property business in the residential area can go down. Additionally, since it is located past a residential area, it can promote prostitution, increase crime rates in the neighborhood, and worsen the traffic in the place. Conversely, even with these claims from the appellee, the company is currently protected by the law of “free speech” rights.

The Case and the Legal Framework

The appellant should challenge the order in court and state the Keep it Civil has restrained commercial speech in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments of the state of Nirvana. This should lead to the upholding of the Keep it Civil’s order at the intermediate appellate level so that the court can establish whether there is a relationship between promotional advertising and the moral corruption of the public based on the signage and the nature of the business.

The 1st and 14th Amendment protects any business’ commercial speech from unwarranted governmental regulations, and thus it may be impossible for a new law to be created that would affect Bunker’s signage advertisement. Therefore, if the First Amendment will be applied in the case, then the Keep it Civil base of argument prohibiting the wordings of the signage and seeking for a new law from the government giving it more power to suppress and regulate the advertising of Bunkers, will be rejected. A strong argument will be founded on the fact that people will act on their interests only when they possess the right information about a particular thing. Additionally, the First Amendment indicates that it is necessary for a business to offer some information on their operation to the public than having no information at all.

The constitution has no grounds to object the suppression of a commercial message that inaccurately informs the public about unlawful activities. However, Bunkers accurately inform the public of their operations, and they have complied with all legal requirements to put up the business. Therefore, the appellant still has legal frameworks that protect her, and that can stop the appellee from seeking for new laws that prohibit the Bunkers advertising. The government could only ban the advertisement if it deceived the public about the operations or advertised of illegal activity, but in the case of Bunkers, the Appellee is concerned about the moral corruption and crimes that may arise from the nature and location of the business. The message on the signage is neither deceptive nor associated with illegal operations, and that means that the government’s power is restricted.

The court cannot impose a ban advertisement of Bunkers to protect the business ethics because it meets both the state and government’s interest such as tax compliance and other economic growth facilitators. Additionally, there is no direct link to the dangers (moral corruption, crime, and traffic, etc.) cited by the Keep It Civil organization on the signage to the state. However, there may be a requirement of the law for the business to supplement their advertisement with some warning and disclaimer message in its promotional material such as those in contraceptive, cigarette and alcohol brands.


In our current case, therefore, we shall be establishing whether the advertising of Bunkers business is protected by the laws of Nirvana in the First Amendment by conforming to practicing legal activities and offering information that does not mislead the public. Then, we shall assess whether the declared governmental interest is considerable. If the answers to these two inquiries are positive, then we shall determine whether the rules meets the national interests asserted and whether it is broader than it should to serve those interests.

Please let me know if you have any queries.


(your name)