less than 1 minute read

Inc. v. Rhode Island Liquormart (44 )

Justice Scalia's Historical Approach

In a separate opinion, Justice Scalia "share[d] Justice Thomas's discomfort with the Central Hudson test," as well as Justice Stevens's "aversion towards paternalistic governmental policies that prevent men and women from hearing facts that might not be good for them." However, Justice Scalia thought that the First Amendment, outside of cases involving suppression of political ideas which the First Amendment was clearly designed to prohibit, should be interpreted according the historical practices of the American people. Nevertheless, Justice Scalia concluded that the Court did not have before it in this case sufficient information to determine what these practices were. Thus, he concluded that he "must resolve this case in accord with" the Court's existing law in this area, which he agreed with Justices Stevens and O'Connor compelled the conclusion that the Rhode Island statute was unconstitutional

Additional topics

Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1995 to PresentInc. v. Rhode Island Liquormart (44 ) - Significance, Justice O'connor's Four Part Test, Justice Stevens's Modified Central Hudson Test