case 5 - st Amend? DECISION Yes. In a 5-3 opinion delivered...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Daniel Dunbar JLS 133 Case Brief 44 LIQUORMART, INC v. RHODE ISLAND Supreme Court of the United States, 1996. 517 U.S. 484, 116 S.Ct. 1495, 134 L.Ed.2d 711 FACTS Petitioners are 44 Liquor and Peoples Liquor stores (RI licenses retailers). Peoples operate in Mass. as well and sell to RI customers. Peoples advertise its prices in MA, but not RI because its not allowed in RI. 1991 44 placed an ad in RI newspaper and competitors complained. The ad did not state a price, but a bargain price cold has been inferred from the ad. "WOW" ISSUE Whether RI’s ban against alcoholic beverage pricing ads, when accurate, constitutes an Unconstitutional infringement of the 1
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: st Amend? DECISION Yes. In a 5-3 opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that prison racial-segregation policies are subject to strict scrutiny. REASONING The Court rejected the claim that because the policy was "neutral" - because all prisoners were "equally" segregated - the policy was not subject to strict scrutiny. Racial classifications must receive strict scrutiny even when they may be said to affect the races equally. The Court remanded the case so that the Ninth Circuit could use strict scrutiny to review the policy. Justices John Paul Stevens, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia dissented....
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online