egislation permitting states to completely ban the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products was passed by Congress and upheld by the United States Supreme Court. Following the lead of other states, a state legislature declined to enact a complete ban on tobacco products. However, it passed a compromise measure that banned all advertisements for cigarettes and tobacco products by any print or broadcast media located in the state. A state tobacco distributor that wished to advertise in local newspapers brings an action in federal court to challenge the state statute. How is the court likely to rule

The statute is unconstitutional because the right to ban all truthful advertising for a product is not automatically justified by the right to ban the sale of a product entirely.

Explanation:

Considering the scenario described in the question above, the would court likely to rule that "the statute is unconstitutional because the right to ban all truthful advertising for a product is not automatically justified by the right to ban the sale of a product entirely."

This is because according to the regulations guiding the Advertisement of products and services, the state can only limit a truthful and non-deceptive advertisement of products and services if the state asserts a substantial government interest. Otherwise, it would be considered to be an improper restriction of commercial speech in as much the advertisement is not misleading and fraudulent.

b. condominum i think