Oral argument in Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc.

Tuesday the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a corporate speech case, Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc. Adam Chandler of SCOTUSblog provides a recap:

…. almost all journalists covering Sorrell agreed that the Court was skeptical of Vermont’s restriction on pharmaceutical marketers’ use of drug prescription records. “So heavy was the [Court’s] defense of corporate expression,” writes SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston, “that the lawyer for Vermont . . . had to continue her argument under siege.” In the New York Times, Adam Liptak links the “somewhat esoteric” Sorrell case to Citizens United v. FEC , explaining that both cases involve “a fundamental First Amendment principle that has much engaged the justices lately: What role may the government play in regulating the marketplace of ideas?” USA TodayNPR, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times (also here), CNNBloomberg, the Associated Press (via the Boston Globe), theChristian Science MonitorPBS NewsHourReutersJURIST, the WSJ Health Blog, andConstitutional Law Prof Blog all have coverage of the argument.

Well, that doesn’t sound like it went well, but as I’ve just returned from a trip, I haven’t had time to read the transcript of the argument yet.

In related coverage, Frank Pasquale blogged on Concurring Opinions, Rethinking Sorrell v. IMS Health: Privacy as a First Amendment Value.

About the author: Dissent

Comments are closed.