- Status
- Judgment entered (judgment)
- As of
- 1 Jul 1986 · read from the court record
- Court
- U.S. Supreme Court (appeal from the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, which had dismissed the appeal from the Superior Court, San Juan Section) · Supreme or high court
- Docket
- 84-1903
- Judge
- Justice Rehnquist (majority); Justices Brennan and Stevens (dissents)
- Filed
- not on record
- Type
- Constitutional challenge, advertising and marketing lawsuits
- Money
- No settlement fund or award on record
- Payout
- No payout exists as of 14 Nov 2026
Status words follow the court record: a complaint states one side's allegations, only the court's orders decide anything. Filing a settlement claim is always free.
What this case is about
Argued 28 April 1986 and decided 1 July 1986 by 5-4, Posadas upheld Puerto Rico's ban on casino advertising directed at its own residents (while permitting advertising aimed at tourists), as narrowed by the Superior Court. Applying Central Hudson, Justice Rehnquist found the government's interest in residents' health, safety and welfare substantial, the ban a direct way of reducing demand for casino gambling, and the narrowed rule no more extensive than necessary; the Court added that a legislature able to ban an activity may ban its advertising. Brennan and Stevens dissented. The 'greater includes the lesser' reasoning was repudiated in 44 Liquormart (1996) and the Court struck down the federal broadcast ban on casino advertising in Greater New Orleans Broadcasting (1999, GL-US-0897), but Posadas remains the starting point for every US gambling-advertising case and for the current state restrictions on sportsbook promotions.
What this case is about
Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico, 478 U.S. 328 (1986), docket 84-1903, is a U.S. Supreme Court appeal from the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico. That court had dismissed an appeal from the Superior Court, San Juan Section.
A casino operator challenged the Puerto Rico Games of Chance Act of 1948 and Tourism Company regulations that restricted casino advertising aimed at residents. The claim was a First Amendment commercial speech challenge under the Central Hudson test. It is the starting point for the advertising and marketing lawsuits on this site.
Who is covered
The plaintiff was Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates, a casino operator. The defendant was the Tourism Company of Puerto Rico, a government corporation that administers the Games of Chance Act of 1948 and its advertising regulations.
The ruling concerns advertising of casino gambling directed at Puerto Rico residents. Advertising aimed at tourists remained permitted. See gambling lawsuits in the United States for other U.S. cases.
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case. It was a constitutional challenge to an advertising restriction, and the record shows no fund, fine, damages or settlement.
There is no claim form and nothing for a player to file.
What the court decided
The Court heard argument on 28 April 1986 and decided the case on 1 July 1986 by 5-4. Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court, joined by Burger, White, Powell and O'Connor. Justice Brennan dissented, joined by Marshall and Blackmun, and Justice Stevens dissented, joined by Marshall and Blackmun.
The Court upheld the ban on casino advertising directed at residents, as narrowed by the Superior Court. Applying Central Hudson, it found the government's interest in residents' health, safety and welfare substantial. It found the ban a direct way of reducing demand for casino gambling, and no more extensive than necessary.
The Court added that a legislature able to ban an activity may ban its advertising. As of 14 November 2026 the status is judgment: the decision of 1 July 1986 was final for this case, though later cases revised its reasoning.
Why it matters
The "greater includes the lesser" reasoning was repudiated in 44 Liquormart (1996). The Court then struck down the federal broadcast ban on casino advertising in Greater New Orleans Broadcasting (1999). Posadas nonetheless remains the starting point for every U.S. gambling-advertising case and for current state restrictions on sportsbook promotions.
Newer suits over promotions are tracked in advertising and marketing lawsuits against gambling operators.
Related cases
- Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Association, Inc. v. United States: the 1999 judgment that struck down the federal broadcast ban.
- Scanlon v. DraftKings Inc.: a sportsbook promotions case, filed.
- Macek v. DraftKings Inc. (No. 2:25-cv-03632): a promotions case at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
- Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. DraftKings Inc. and FanDuel: a city's duty-of-care suit, on appeal.
Questions people ask
What did Posadas decide?
On 1 July 1986 the Supreme Court held 5-4 that Puerto Rico could ban casino advertising directed at its own residents while allowing advertising aimed at tourists, applying the Central Hudson test.
Is Posadas still good law?
Its "greater includes the lesser" reasoning was repudiated in 44 Liquormart (1996), and the 1999 Greater New Orleans Broadcasting decision struck down the federal broadcast ban on casino ads. Posadas remains the starting point for gambling-advertising cases.
Who dissented in Posadas?
Justice Brennan dissented, joined by Marshall and Blackmun. Justice Stevens also dissented, joined by Marshall and Blackmun.
Who is involved
Plaintiffs: Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates (casino operator challenging the advertising restrictions)
| Defendants | Tourism Company of Puerto Rico (government corporation administering the Games of Chance Act of 1948 and its advertising regulations) |
|---|---|
| Judge | Justice Rehnquist (majority); Justices Brennan and Stevens (dissents) |
| Claims |
|
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case as of 14 Nov 2026.
What happens next
No future date is on the record we hold. The case is closed on the record we hold; later appeals or enforcement steps would be added here.
Timeline
1 dated step on record, oldest first. Future dates come from court notices and can move.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1 Jul 1986 | Judgment entered |
Documents and sources
1 primary source (court file, administrator notice, regulator) and 0 secondary. Press is supporting evidence only.
- Court document: law.cornell.edu
| What it supports | Source | Type | Retrieved |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. 84-1903; argued April 28, 1986; decided July 1, 1986; 5-4; Rehnquist for the Court with Burger, White, Powell, O'Connor; dissents by Brennan (with Marshall, Blackmun) and Stevens (with Marshall, Blackmun); Superior Court of Puerto Rico narrowing construction; Central Hudson holding | law.cornell.edu | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
Related cases
4 cases in the record share parties, claims or a settlement with this one.
| Case | Court | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Casino advertising First Amendment ruling | U.S. Supreme Court (from the Fifth Circuit) | Judgment entered |
| DraftKings $1,000 deposit bonus class action (Massachusetts) | Massachusetts Superior Court, Business Litigation Session (Suffolk County), transferred from Middlesex County in April 2024 | Filed, pending |
| DraftKings deposit-match and "risk-free bet" class action (Pennsylvania) | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania | Motion to dismiss pending |
| City of Baltimore v. DraftKings and FanDuel | Circuit Court for Baltimore City (removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Judge Gallagher; remanded 10 November 2025 under Burford abstention; remand on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 25-2372) | On appeal |
Last checked against the sources on 14 Nov 2026. Found an error? Tell us and we correct the record with a dated note.