Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statutenonprofit
plaintiffstatutenonprofitappellee

Related Cases

Noske v. Friedberg, 670 N.W.2d 740
View Case »
United States v. Giglio, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2023 WL 4918332
View Case »
Hammad v. U.S., 498 U.S. 871, 111 S.Ct. 192, 112 L.Ed.2d 154
View Case »
Thompson v. United States, 141 S.Ct. 2688 (Mem), 210 L.Ed.2d 843
View Case »
In re Hall County Grand Jury Proceedings, 175 Ga.App. 349, 333 S.E.2d 389
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 48 L.Ed.2d 346, 1976-1 Trade Cases P 60,930, 1 Media L. Rep. 1930

Facts

The case arose when consumers of prescription drugs, including a Virginia resident and two nonprofit organizations, sued the Virginia State Board of Pharmacy. They argued that the statute prohibiting pharmacists from advertising prescription drug prices violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The District Court found that the ban on advertising drug prices was unconstitutional, as it limited the flow of information that could benefit consumers, particularly those with limited means to shop around for better prices.

The present, and second, attack on the statute is one made not by one directly subject to its prohibition, that is, a pharmacist, but by prescription drug consumers who claim that they would greatly benefit if the prohibition were lifted and advertising freely allowed.

Issue

Did the Virginia statute prohibiting licensed pharmacists from advertising the prices of prescription drugs violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

The question first arises whether, even assuming that First Amendment protection attaches to the flow of drug price information, it is a protection enjoyed by the appellees as recipients of the information, and not solely, if at all, by the advertisers themselves who seek to disseminate that information.

Rule

The court ruled that commercial speech is protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and that the state cannot justify a complete ban on truthful advertising of lawful activities.

“Commercial speech” is not wholly outside the protection of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Virginia statute is therefore invalid.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by emphasizing that the consumers, as recipients of the information, have a right to receive truthful advertising about prescription drug prices. The court noted that the state's interest in maintaining professionalism among pharmacists did not justify the complete suppression of price information, especially when the information could significantly impact consumers' health and financial well-being.

The District Court seized on the identity of the plaintiff-appellees as consumers as a feature distinguishing the present case from Patterson Drug Co. v. Kingery, supra. Because the unsuccessful plaintiffs in that earlier case were pharmacists, the court said, “theirs was a prima facie commercial approach.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's ruling, declaring the Virginia statute void and enjoining its enforcement, thereby protecting the consumers' right to receive information about prescription drug prices.

Held: 1. Any First Amendment protection enjoyed by advertisers seeking to disseminate prescription drug price information is also enjoyed, and thus may be asserted, by appellees as recipients of such information.

Who won?

Consumers of prescription drugs prevailed in the case because the court recognized their First Amendment rights to receive information about drug prices, which the statute unjustly restricted.

The plaintiffs are an individual Virginia resident who suffers from diseases that require her to take prescription drugs on a daily basis, and two nonprofit organizations.

You must be