| Lorillard v. Reilly | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| 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 | ||||||
|
||||||
| 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 a ban on tobacco ads and sales of tobacco within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds was implemented. 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.
Parts II of the case involve the issue of congressional preemption. congressional preemption is a concept taken in cicumstacnes where state or local laws may interfere with federal law. In Lorillard Tobacco Co. v.Rielly, that state was attempting to regulate the "point of sales' advertising, which interfered with the "express preemption" clause restricting the regulations of "health and promotion.