Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.
Holding
Vermont's Prescription Confidentiality Law, which absent the prescriber's consent prohibits the sale of prescriber-identifying information, as well as the disclosure or use of that information for marketing purposes, is subject to heightened judicial scrutiny because it imposes content- and speaker-based burdens on protected expression. Vermont's justifications for the prohibition cannot withstand such heightened scrutiny.
Judgment
Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Anthony McLeod Kennedy on Jun 23, 2011. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan.
Merits Briefs
- Brief for Petitioners William H. Sorrell et al.
- Brief for Respondents IMS Health Inc. et al.
- Brief for Respondent Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
- Reply Brief for Petitioners
Amicus Briefs
- Brief of AARP and the National Legislative Association on Prescription Drug Prices in Support of Petitioners
- Brief of AFSCME District Council 37, Health Care for All, and Community Catalyst in Support of Petitioners
- Brief of Electronic Frontier Foundation in Support of Petitioners
- Brief of the New England Journal of Medicine, The Massachusetts Medical Society, The National Physicians Alliance, and the American Medical Students Association in Support of Petitioners
- Brief for the Vermont Medical Society, The New Hampshire Medical Society, The Maine Medical Association, The Medical Association of Georgia, The American Academy of Family Practitioners and The American Academy of Pediatrics Supporting Petitioners
- Brief of Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity, Public Health Law & Policy, Berkeley Media Studies Group, Public Health Law Center, Center for Digital Democracy, and Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, in Support of Petitioners
- Brief of the United States in Support of Petitioners
- Brief of Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and Legal Scholars and Technical Experts in Support of the Petitioners
- Brief for the States of Illinois, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia and the District of Columbia in Support of Petitioners
- Brief of Public Citizen, The Center for Science in the Public Interest, Consumer Action, Public Good, Consumer Action, Public Good, U.S. PIRG, and New Hampshire PIRG in Support of Petitioners
- Brief for AFSCME District Council 37, Health Care For All, and Community Catalyst in Support of Petitioners
- Brief Amicus Curiae of American Business Media; Coalition for Healthcare Communication; Consumer Data Industry Association; Corelogic; National Association of Professional Background Screeners; and Reed Elsevier Inc.
- Brief for Amicus U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Support of Respondents
- Brief for Dr. Khaled El Emam and Jane Yakowitz, Esq. as Amici Curiae in support of Respondents
- Brief for Genetic Alliance and the National Organization for Rare Disorders as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents
- Brief for the Association of Clinical Research Organizations as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents
- Brief of Academic Research Scientists as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents
- Brief of Amici Curiae Association of National Advertisers, Inc., American Advertising Federation, and American Association of Advertising Agencies in Support of Respondents
- Brief of Amici Curiae Bloomberg L.P., The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., Hearst Corporation, ProPublica, the Associated Press, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Texas Tribune in Support of Respondents
- Brief of Amici Curiae Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Tommy G. Thompson, and The Healthcare Leadership Council in Support of Respondents
- Brief of Amici Curiae Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, Biotechnology Industry Organization et al in Support of Respondents
- Brief of Amicus Curiae New England Legal Foundation in Support of Respondents
- Brief of Amicus Curiae Pacific Legal Foundation and Cato Institute in Support of Respondents
- Brief of Amicus Curiae TechFreedomin Support of Respondents
- Brief of Council of American Survey Research Organizations, Inc. as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents
- Brief of the National Association of Chain Drug Stores and American Society for Automation in Pharmacy as Amici in Support of Respondents
- Brief of Washington Legal Foundation and the National Association of Manufacturers in Support of Respondents
[##CERT-STAGE##]
Recommended Citation: Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/sorrell-v-ims-health-inc/