Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

This week the blog will publish a multi-part online symposium on United States v. Texas, a challenge by Texas and twenty-five states to the Obama administration's deferred-action policy for immigration. Contributions to this special feature, as well as an “explainer” by this blog's Lyle Denniston, are available here.

Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.

Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
10-779 2d Cir. Apr 26, 2011
Tr.Aud.
Jun 23, 2011 6-3 Kennedy OT 2010

Disclosure: Goldstein, Howe and Russell P.C. represents the respondents IMS Health, SDI, and Verispan, in this case.

Holding: Vermont's Prescription Confidentiality Law, which absent the prescriber's consent prohibits the sale of prescriber-identifying information, as well as the disclosure or use of that information for marketing purposes, is subject to heightened judicial scrutiny because it imposes content- and speaker-based burdens on protected expression. Vermont's justifications for the prohibition cannot withstand such heightened scrutiny.

Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy on June 23, 2011. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Briefs and Documents

Merits Briefs

Amicus Briefs

Certiorari-stage documents

 
Share:
Term Snapshot
Awards