Freedom of speech, enshrined in the First Amendment, drastically limits the government’s ability to both regulate speech and to compel speech. Against that backdrop, this Article addresses the constitutionality of the federal government’s recent attempt to require tobacco companies to furnish cigarette packages with graphic images depicting the harmful health effects associated with smoking. In doing so, the Author examines the tension between the governmental interest in conveying information regarding the dangers of tobacco usage and the First Amendment implications in compelling commercial speech. Tobacco companies responded to the new requirements with litigation, and the Article discusses the resulting circuit split as to both the appropriate standard of scrutiny to use in evaluating the graphic warnings and their ultimate constitutionality. The Article suggests that the decision of which level of scrutiny to apply-rational basis review, intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny-is of keystone importance, because it essentially dictates a court’s conclusion as to constitutionality of compelling the placement of graphic warnings on tobacco packaging. Included in this analysis is a historical examination of the evolving governmental regulation of tobacco packaging and the federal government’s rationale in now requiring tobacco manufacturers to place graphic warnings on cigarette packages. Finally, the Author forecasts the possibility of a Supreme Court decision to resolve the circuit split and contends that the Supreme Court should apply heightened scrutiny in gauging the constitutionality of the graphic warnings.