This article does not
cite any
sources. Please help
improve this article by
adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and
removed. Find sources: "Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (November 2009) ( Learn how and when to remove this template message) |
Lorillard v. Reilly | |
---|---|
Argued April 25, 2001 Decided June 28, 2001 | |
Full case name | Lorillard Tobacco Company, et al. v. Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al.; Altadis U.S.A. Inc., etc., et al. v. Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al. |
Citations | 533
U.S.
525 (
more) 121 S. Ct. 2404; 150
L. Ed. 2d 532; 2001
U.S. LEXIS 4911; 69 U.S.L.W. 4582; 29 Media L. Rep. 2121; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5421; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 6699; 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3333; 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 470 |
Case history | |
Prior | 218 F.3d 30 ( 1st Cir. 2000) |
Holding | |
Regulation on tobacco advertising struck down as overly broad | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | O'Connor, joined by Unanimous (Parts I, II-C, and II-D) Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas (Parts III-A, III-C, and III-D) Rehnquist, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer (parts Part III-B-1) Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas (Parts II-A, II-B, III-B-2, and IV) |
Concurrence | Kennedy, joined by Scalia |
Concurrence | Thomas |
Concur/dissent | Souter |
Concur/dissent | Stevens, joined by Souter (Part I), Ginsburg, Breyer |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const., Amends. I and XIV |
Lorillard v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001), was a 2001 case brought by Lorillard Tobacco Company when Massachusetts instituted a ban on tobacco ads and sales of tobacco within 1,000 feet (300 m) of schools and playgrounds. Lorillard argued that this was an infringement on its First Amendment rights and that the regulation was more extensive than necessary. Applying the Central Hudson Test, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Massachusetts' ban on advertising and tobacco sales was overbroad. The Supreme Court also held that the Massachusetts regulation was preempted by federal law.
Brands | |
---|---|
Buildings | |
Other |
This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
This article does not
cite any
sources. Please help
improve this article by
adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and
removed. Find sources: "Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (November 2009) ( Learn how and when to remove this template message) |
Lorillard v. Reilly | |
---|---|
Argued April 25, 2001 Decided June 28, 2001 | |
Full case name | Lorillard Tobacco Company, et al. v. Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al.; Altadis U.S.A. Inc., etc., et al. v. Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al. |
Citations | 533
U.S.
525 (
more) 121 S. Ct. 2404; 150
L. Ed. 2d 532; 2001
U.S. LEXIS 4911; 69 U.S.L.W. 4582; 29 Media L. Rep. 2121; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5421; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 6699; 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3333; 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 470 |
Case history | |
Prior | 218 F.3d 30 ( 1st Cir. 2000) |
Holding | |
Regulation on tobacco advertising struck down as overly broad | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | O'Connor, joined by Unanimous (Parts I, II-C, and II-D) Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas (Parts III-A, III-C, and III-D) Rehnquist, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer (parts Part III-B-1) Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas (Parts II-A, II-B, III-B-2, and IV) |
Concurrence | Kennedy, joined by Scalia |
Concurrence | Thomas |
Concur/dissent | Souter |
Concur/dissent | Stevens, joined by Souter (Part I), Ginsburg, Breyer |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const., Amends. I and XIV |
Lorillard v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001), was a 2001 case brought by Lorillard Tobacco Company when Massachusetts instituted a ban on tobacco ads and sales of tobacco within 1,000 feet (300 m) of schools and playgrounds. Lorillard argued that this was an infringement on its First Amendment rights and that the regulation was more extensive than necessary. Applying the Central Hudson Test, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Massachusetts' ban on advertising and tobacco sales was overbroad. The Supreme Court also held that the Massachusetts regulation was preempted by federal law.
Brands | |
---|---|
Buildings | |
Other |
United States First Amendment case law | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |