Syllabus | Opinion [ Stevens ] | Concurrence [ Rehnquist ] | Concurrence [ Thomas ] |
---|---|---|---|
HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version |
GREATER NEW ORLEANS BROADCASTING ASSOCIATION, INC., etc., et al., PETI-
TIONERS v. UNITED STATES et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
[June 14, 1999]
Justice Thomas, concurring in the judgment.
I continue to adhere to my view that [i]n cases such as this, in which the governments asserted interest is to keep legal users of a product or service ignorant in order to manipulate their choices in the marketplace, the Central Hudson test should not be applied because such an interest is per se illegitimate and can no more justify regulation of commercial speech than it can justify regulation of noncommercial speech. 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484, 518 (1996) (concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). Accordingly, I concur only in the judgment.