S at 491 in sorrell v ims health inc 131 s ct 2653

This preview shows page 53 - 55 out of 84 pages.

, 514 U.S. at 491). In Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653, 2659 (2011), after holding that a Vermont law prohibiting pharmacies from selling or disclosing pharmacy records that revealed the prescribing practices of individual doctors was unconstitutional under the content neutrality principle, the Court addressed the state’s argument that a lesser standard of scrutiny should apply because the speech at issue was commercial speech. The Court found it unnecessary to decide this question, because even if it was commercial speech, under the commercial speech doctrine, the state could not have a substantial interest in suppressing a disfavored message. Id. at 2668. Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan dissented on the ground that any effect on expression was “inextricably related to a lawful governmental effort to regulate a commercial enterprise” and that the regulation could be upheld under the commercial speech doctrine. Id. at 2673-84. 272.See infranotes 277-78 and accompanying text.
1056 THE WAYNE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 58:1003 governmental interests in aesthetics and traffic safety273and a public university’s ban on sales presentations in student residences.274The Court has also held that, at least in some circumstances, the government may limit advertising of the availability of activities that are illegal in some states.275It has also been assumed that the First Amendment does not prevent the government from requiring that commercial advertising contain additional information, such as the “cigarette smoking is harmful to your health” warning that the federal government requires on all cigarette advertising.276273.Compare Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 503 (1981) (recognizing an exception to the category neutrality aspect of the content neutrality principle and holding that the government could exempt some commercial billboards from the regulation, but not some non-commercial billboards from the regulation), withCity of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410, 410-11 (1993) (holding that a city could not exclude newsracks containing advertising and promotional materials on public sidewalks if it permitted newsracks containing newspapers, as there was no valid basis for distinguishing between newsracks in terms of the content of the material contained in the newsrack). 274.See Bd. of Trustees v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 472, 480-81, 85-86 (1989). 275. SeeFCC v. Edge Broad. Co., 509 U.S. 418, 436 (1993) (upholding a federal law prohibiting the broadcasting of lottery advertisements in states where lotteries were illegal). A large number of states have state-sponsored lotteries, but some do not, and the effect of the law in Edge Broadcasting Company was to prohibit advertising of such lotteries in a neighboring state where lotteries were illegal. Id.However, in Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Association, Inc. v. United States, 527 U.S. 173, 180-81 (1999), the Court held that the law was unconstitutional as applied to prohibit the broadcasting of advertisements for casino gambling in states where casino gambling was legal,

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture