Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly

2001 United States Supreme Court case
Lorillard v. Reilly
Argued April 25, 2001
Decided June 28, 2001
Full case nameLorillard 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.
Citations533 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
Prior218 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2000)
Holding
Regulation on tobacco advertising struck down as overly broad
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityO'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)
ConcurrenceKennedy, joined by Scalia
ConcurrenceThomas
Concur/dissentSouter
Concur/dissentStevens, 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.

See also

External links

  • Text of Lorillard v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001) is available from: CourtListener  Findlaw  Google Scholar  Justia  Library of Congress  OpenJurist  Oyez (oral argument audio) 
  • v
  • t
  • e
Brands
  • Blu
  • Kent
  • Maverick
  • Max
  • Newport
  • Old Gold
  • Satin
  • True
BuildingsOther
  • v
  • t
  • e
Public displays
and ceremonies
Statutory religious
exemptions
Public funding
Religion in
public schools
Private religious speech
Internal church affairs
Taxpayer standing
Blue laws
Other
Exclusion of religion
from public benefits
Ministerial exception
Statutory religious exemptions
RFRA
RLUIPA
Unprotected
speech
Incitement
and sedition
Libel and
false speech
Fighting words and
the heckler's veto
True threats
Obscenity
Speech integral
to criminal conduct
Strict scrutiny
Vagueness
Symbolic speech
versus conduct
Content-based
restrictions
Content-neutral
restrictions
In the
public forum
Designated
public forum
Nonpublic
forum
Compelled speech
Compelled subsidy
of others' speech
Compelled representation
Government grants
and subsidies
Government
as speaker
Loyalty oaths
School speech
Public employees
Hatch Act and
similar laws
Licensing and
restriction of speech
Commercial speech
Campaign finance
and political speech
Anonymous speech
State action
Official retaliation
Boycotts
Prisons
Prior restraints
and censorship
Privacy
Taxation and
privileges
Defamation
Broadcast media
Copyrighted materials
Incorporation
Protection from prosecution
and state restrictions
Organizations
Future Conduct
Solicitation
Membership restriction
Primaries and elections


Stub icon

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

  • v
  • t
  • e