44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island
| 44 Liquormart Inc. v. Rhode Island | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued November 1, 1995 Decided May 13, 1996 |
|
| Full case name | 44 Liquormart, Inc. and Peoples Super Liquor Stores, inc., petitioners v. Rhode Island and Rhode Island Liquor Stores Association |
| Citations | 517 U.S. 484 (more) |
| Prior history | 829 F. Supp. 543 (D.R.I. 1993), reversed 39 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 1994), certiorari granted 517 U.S. 484 (1996) |
| Holding | |
| The State of Rhode Island violated the First Amendment rights of the petitioners, and the Twenty-first Amendment does not lessen the state's obligation to abide by constitutional provisions beyond the dormant commerce clause. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stevens, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg (parts I, II, VII); Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg (part VIII) |
| Concurrence | Stevens (parts III, V), joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg |
| Concurrence | Stevens (part VI), joined by Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg |
| Concurrence | Stevens (part IV), joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg |
| Concurrence | Scalia |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Concurrence | O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Souter, Breyer |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV, XXI | |
44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a complete ban on the advertising of alcohol prices was unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and that the Twenty-first Amendment, empowering the states to regulate alcohol, did not operate to lessen other constitutional restraints of state power.
In 1956, the Rhode Island Legislature passed two regulations. The first prevented both in and out-of-state manufacturers, wholesalers, and shippers from “advertising in any manner whatsoever” the price of any alcoholic beverage offered for sale in Rhode Island. The second prevented Rhode Island news media from “mak[ing] reference to the price of any alcoholic beverages” under any circumstances.
In 1985, a liquormart brought a suit against the liquor control commissioner, arguing, among other things, that the first regulation, which prevented the liquormart from advertising its prices, was unconstitutional. The Rhode Island Supreme Court, however, held that the regulation did not violate the First Amendment, the Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, or the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
In the same year, the Rhode Island Liquor Stores Association filed a suit that attempted to enjoin a local Rhode Island newspaper, the The Call, from advertising prices of liquor outside of the state. In that case, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the second regulation was constitutional, and enjoined the newspaper from advertising out-of-state liquor prices.
...
Wikipedia