[3] In 1979, the Tourism Company sent a memo to casino operators further clarifying restrictions on advertising to include "the use of the word 'casino' in matchbooks, lighters, envelopes, inter-office and/or external correspondence, invoices, napkins, brochures, menus, elevators, glasses, plates, lobbies, banners, flyers, paper holders, pencils, telephone books, directories, bulletin boards or in any hotel dependency or object which may be accessible to the public in Puerto Rico.

"[3] However, it "adopted a narrowing construction of the Act and regulations" which permitted local advertising if aimed at inviting tourists but not residents to partake.

The case was argued on April 28, 1986, with Maria Milagros Soto representing the appellant and Lino J. Saldana the appellees.

[5] In 2003's Freedom of Commercial Expression, Roger Shiner points out that what was remarkable about the Posadas decision was the way in which the Court applied Central Hudson, not requesting any evidence that the restrictions were necessary to protect state interest in public wellbeing, but simply accepting that the assertion that it might be necessary and useful was reasonable.

[6] Court of Appeals justice Richard Posner suggested in 2004's Frontiers of Legal Theory that to an economist, this view is not reasonable, even granting for the sake of argument that the state does have interest in imposing more rigorous restrictions on commercial speech.

[8][9][10] It was the first in a series of permissive decisions regarding regulation of commercial speech, applying a more lax standard than the intermediate scrutiny recommended in Central Hudson.

[11] In 1987, the implications of the decision were raised when the American Bar Association was considering a proposal to support extending the ban on tobacco advertising to all media, even though the act of smoking was legal.

According to attorney Bruce Ennis, Rubin "put the nail in the coffin of the Posadas decision" when the Court unanimously decided that it was unconstitutional to prohibit the display of alcoholic content on beer labels.

[9] However, Posadas was not overturned then nor when it was raised during 44 Liquormart's successful challenge to a law banning publication of liquor prices in Rhode Island, even though Justices Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas all called for it to be overruled.

[15][16] Even though she did not call for overruling, Justice O'Connor—whose opinion was signed by Rehnquist, Stephen Breyer and David Souter—stated that the Court had properly ignored Posadas in determining subsequent cases.