Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly

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)

533 U.S. 525; 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
Prior history 218 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2000)
Holding
Regulation on tobacco advertising struck down as overly broad
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
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 on by Lorillard Tobacco Company when Massachusetts instituted a ban on tobacco ads and sales of tobacco within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds. Lorillard argued that this was an infringement on their First Amendment rights, and that the regulation was more extensive than necessary. The U.S. Supreme Court applied the Central Hudson Test to the case in order to determine whether Massachusetts' ban on advertising and tobacco sales were in fact restricting the company's First Amendment rights. After failing The Central Hudson test, this regulation on tobacco advertising was found to be too broad, and Lorillard Tobacco Company won the case.

Part II of the case involved the issue of congressional preemption. Congressional preemption is a concept taken in circumstances where state or local laws may interfere with federal law. In Lorillard Tobacco Co. v.Rielly, Massachusetts was attempting to regulate the "point of sales" advertising, which interfered with the "express preemption" clause restricting the regulations of "health and promotion".


See also

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Tuesday, December 01, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.