Harman Patil (Editor)

Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly

Updated on
Edit
Like
Comment
Share on FacebookTweet on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Reddit
Concurrence
  
Thomas

End date
  
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)

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

Similar
  
44 Liquormart - Inc v Rh, Virginia State Pharmac, Bates v State Bar of Arizona, FCC v Pacifica Foundation, Cipollone v Liggett Group - Inc

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 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.

References

Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly Wikipedia