| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | Virginia has a law classifying as professional misconduct any advertisemebt by a pharmacist for prescription drugs mentioning price, discount, rebates, etc. |
| Posture: | District court says the law is void, and enjoins the board of pharmacy from enforcing it. |
| Issue: | Does 1A prohibit a ban of this type? |
| Holding: | Yes. Affirmed. |
| Rule: | A state can't suppress the dissemination of truthful information about lawful acivity just because it finds the effects on the disseminaotrs or recipients undesirable. |
| Reasoning: | Some commercial speech is not protected, but freedom of speech
implicates the interests of both the speaker and the listener.
There's maybe a right to receive this kind of
advertising.
This is squarely commercial speech: I will sell you drug X at price Y. There's a strong general interest in the free flow of commercial information. Lack of information has a regressive effect: the poor, the elderly, and the sick (who spend the highest percentage of income on prescription drugs, but are least able to get the information via other means). Of course, there's also a strong interest in maintaining professionalism. But there are lots of ways to accomplish that, and banning pricing information doesn't guard against unscrupulous pharmacists who might find ways to cut corners elsewhere. VA doesn't have the power to keep the public in ignorance of entirely lawful terms on which pharmacists are competing. |
| Dicta: | Burger (concurring): The practice of law or medicine is different
from pharmacy pricing; regulation there still might make sense.
Stewart (concurring): This doesn't invalidate laws restricting false or deceptive advertising. Rhenquist (dissenting): This is out of bounds-- the court is overturning a legislative determination, and has extended standing to do so, and is extending 1A as well. The people directly affected by this statute aren't even parties to the lawsuit. |