Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp.
Significance, Teaching Americans To Use Condoms, Political Speech And Commercial Speech, When The Government May Regulate Commercial Speech
The United States Postal Service
Youngs Drug Products Corporation
The postal service should be allowed to ban the mailing of unsolicited advertisements about condoms.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
David A. Strauss
Chief Lawyers for Appellee
Jerold S. Solovy, Robert L. Graham, Laura A. Kaster
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, Thurgood Marshall (writing for the Court), Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
None (William J. Brennan, Jr., did not participate)
Date of Decision
24 June 1983
The postal service could not ban unsolicited advertisements for contraceptives.
- Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52 (1942).
- National Life Ins. Co. v. Phillips Publishing, Inc., 793 F.Supp. 627 (1992).
- Gordon and Breach Science Publishers S.A. v. American Institute of Physics, 859 F.Supp. 1521 (1994).
- Gartner, Michael. Advertising and the First Amendment. New York: Priority Press, 1989.
- Hemmer, Joseph. The Supreme Court and the First Amendment. New York: Praeger, 1986.
- Middleton, Kent. The Law of Public Communication. White Plains, New York: Longman, 1988.
- Boos v. Barry - Significance, The Split Over Part Ii, Parts Iii, Iv, And V, Foreign Embassies
- Bob Jones University v. United States - Significance, Defining A Charity, Taxes And Religious Freedom, Private Institutions And Segregation, Further Readings
- Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp. - Significance
- Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp. - Teaching Americans To Use Condoms
- Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp. - Political Speech And Commercial Speech
- Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp. - When The Government May Regulate Commercial Speech
- Other Free Encyclopedias