Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly

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
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
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

• Commercial speech
  • Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1974)
  • Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977)
  • Linmark Associates, Inc., v. Township of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977)
  • Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980)
  • Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico, 478 U.S. 328 (1986)
• List of United States Supreme Court cases
  • List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 533

External links

• Text of Lorillard v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001) is available from:  Findlaw  Justia 
• Summary of the case from OYEZ