InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Sorrell, Attorney General of Vermont, et al. v. Ims Health Inc. et al

The Court held that a Vermont statute that restricted the sale, disclosure, and use of records that revealed the prescribing practices of individual doctors violated the First Amendment.

564 U.S. 552 · No. 10-779 · 2010 term · Roberts Court

Decided Jun 23, 2011 · argued Apr 26, 2011

First Amendment · Commercial speech, excluding attorneys

Struck down a state law

Majority opinion: Anthony Kennedy

The voteMajorityDissent

6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent

3 dissents (6–3)

Affirmed. Sorrell, Attorney General of Vermont, et al. lost.

What this ruling means

Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).

Sorrell, Attorney General of Vermont, et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Vermont statute that restricted the sale, disclosure, and use of records that revealed the prescribing practices of individual doctors violated the First Amendment.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2010 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianGinsburgSotomayorKaganBreyerKennedyJ. RobertsAlitoScaliaThomas

Majority(6)

Dissent(3)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Sorrell, Attorney General of Vermont, et al.State (Vermont)
Respondent
Ims Health Inc. et alDrug manufacturer
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Why it was taken
Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
First Amendment (speech, press, and assembly)
Kind of law
Constitutional Amendment
Decided by
Judicial review (state level)
Struck down
A state law, as unconstitutional
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 23, 2011DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: affirmed. Sorrell, Attorney General of Vermont, et al. lost.
  2. Apr 26, 2011ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: reversed and remanded, with a dissent.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Vermont U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

26 other argued cases since 1946 on commercial speech, excluding attorneys, newest first.

  1. City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising of Texas Inc142 S. Ct. 1464Apr 21, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 1464First Amendment6–36–3 band

  2. Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman137 S. Ct. 1144Mar 29, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 1144First Amendment8–0Unanimous band

  3. Mike Johanns, Secretary of Agriculture, et al., v. Livestock Marketing Association et al.544 U.S. 550May 23, 2005 · 544 U.S. 550First Amendment6–36–3 band

  4. Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Western States Medical Center et al.535 U.S. 357Apr 29, 2002 · 535 U.S. 357First Amendment5–45–4 band
  5. United States and Department of Agriculture v. United Foods, Inc.533 U.S. 405Jun 25, 2001 · 533 U.S. 405First Amendment6–36–3 band
  6. Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Corporation528 U.S. 32Dec 7, 1999 · 528 U.S. 32First Amendment7–27–2 band
  7. Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Association, Inc., etc., et al. v. United States et al.527 U.S. 173Jun 14, 1999 · 527 U.S. 173First Amendment9–0Unanimous band
  8. Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc., et al.521 U.S. 457Jun 25, 1997 · 521 U.S. 457First Amendment5–45–4 band

  9. 44 Liquormart, Inc. and Peoples Super Liquor Stores, Inc. v. Rhode Island and Rhode Island Liquor Stores Association517 U.S. 484May 13, 1996 · 517 U.S. 484First Amendment9–0Unanimous band

  10. Robert E. Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury v. Coors Brewing Company514 U.S. 476Apr 19, 1995 · 514 U.S. 476First Amendment9–0Unanimous band
  11. United States and Federal Communications Commission v. Edge Broadcasting Company T/A Power 94509 U.S. 418Jun 25, 1993 · 509 U.S. 418First Amendment7–27–2 band
  12. Fred H. Edenfield, et al. v. Scott Fane507 U.S. 761Apr 26, 1993 · 507 U.S. 761First Amendment8–18–1 band
  13. City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., et al.507 U.S. 410Mar 24, 1993 · 507 U.S. 410First Amendment6–36–3 band

  14. Board of Trustees of the State University of New York et al. v. Fox et al.492 U.S. 469Jun 29, 1989 · 492 U.S. 469First Amendment6–36–3 band

  15. Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates, dba Condado Holiday Inn v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico et al.Landmark · Freedom of speech and of the press478 U.S. 328Jul 1, 1986 · 478 U.S. 328First Amendment5–45–4 band

  16. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California et al.475 U.S. 1Feb 25, 1986 · 475 U.S. 1First Amendment5–36–3 band

  17. Bolger et al. v. Youngs Drug Products Corp.463 U.S. 60Jun 24, 1983 · 463 U.S. 60First Amendment8–0Unanimous band
  18. Metromedia, Inc., et al. v. City of San Diego, et al.453 U.S. 490Jul 2, 1981 · 453 U.S. 490First Amendment6–36–3 band

  19. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New YorkLandmark · Freedom of speech and of the press447 U.S. 557Jun 20, 1980 · 447 U.S. 557First Amendment8–18–1 band
  20. Friedman et al. v. Rogers et al.440 U.S. 1Feb 21, 1979 · 440 U.S. 1First Amendment7–27–2 band

  21. Linmark Associates, Inc., et al. v. Township of Willingboro et al.431 U.S. 85May 2, 1977 · 431 U.S. 85First Amendment8–0Unanimous band
  22. Virginia State Board of Pharmacy et al. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., et al.Landmark · Freedom of speech and of the press425 U.S. 748May 24, 1976 · 425 U.S. 748First Amendment7–18–1 band

  23. Bigelow v. Virginia421 U.S. 809Jun 16, 1975 · 421 U.S. 809First Amendment7–27–2 band

  24. Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations et al.413 U.S. 376Jun 21, 1973 · 413 U.S. 376First Amendment5–45–4 band

  25. Railway Express Agency, Inc. et al. v. New York336 U.S. 106Jan 31, 1949 · 336 U.S. 106First Amendment9–0Unanimous band
  26. Donaldson, Postmaster General, v. Read Magazine, Inc. et al.333 U.S. 178Mar 8, 1948 · 333 U.S. 178First Amendment7–27–2 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.