Edward F. Maracich, et al., Petitioners v. Michael Eugene Spears et al.
The Court held that an attorney's solicitation of clients is not a permissible purpose covered by the "litigation exception" to the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act.
570 U.S. 48 · No. 12-25 · 2012 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jun 17, 2013 · argued Jan 9, 2013
Attorneys · Commercial speech, attorneys
Majority opinion: Anthony Kennedy
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Vacated and remanded. Edward F. Maracich, et al., Petitioners won.
What this ruling means
Vacated and remanded: the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, wiping it out without necessarily saying the result was wrong, and sent the case back for that court to decide again under the right legal standard.
Edward F. Maracich, et al., Petitioners was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave 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.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Maracich v. Spears, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an attorney's solicitation of clients is not a permissible purpose covered by the "litigation exception" to the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act.
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.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2012 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Anthony KennedyWrote the majority opinion
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
Ruth GinsburgWrote a dissent
Sonia SotomayorJoined a dissent
Elena KaganJoined a dissent
Antonin ScaliaJoined a dissent
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.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Edward F. Maracich, et al., PetitionersPrivate person
- Respondent
- Michael Eugene Spears et al.Attorney, or person acting as such;includes bar applicant or law student, or law firm or bar association
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
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.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Kind of law
- State or local law or regulation
- Decided by
- Statutory construction
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.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 17, 2013DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: vacated and remanded. Edward F. Maracich, et al., Petitioners won.
- Jan 9, 2013ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the South Carolina 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.
Other decisions on the same issue
11 other argued cases since 1946 on commercial speech, attorneys, newest first.
- Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P. A., et al. v. United States559 U.S. 229Mar 8, 2010 · 559 U.S. 229Attorneys9–0Unanimous band
- Florida Bar v. Went for It, Inc., and John T. Blakely515 U.S. 618Jun 21, 1995 · 515 U.S. 618Attorneys5–45–4 band
- Silvia S. Ibanez v. Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Accountancy512 U.S. 136Jun 13, 1994 · 512 U.S. 136Attorneys7–27–2 band
- Gary E. Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois496 U.S. 91Jun 4, 1990 · 496 U.S. 91Attorneys5–45–4 band
- Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association486 U.S. 466Jun 13, 1988 · 486 U.S. 466Attorneys6–36–3 band
- Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio471 U.S. 626May 28, 1985 · 471 U.S. 626Attorneys5–36–3 band
- In re R. M. J.455 U.S. 191Jan 25, 1982 · 455 U.S. 191Attorneys9–0Unanimous band
- Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn.436 U.S. 447May 30, 1978 · 436 U.S. 447Attorneys8–0Unanimous band
- In re Primus436 U.S. 412May 30, 1978 · 436 U.S. 412Attorneys7–18–1 band
- Bates et al. v. State Bar of Arizona433 U.S. 350Jun 27, 1977 · 433 U.S. 350Attorneys5–45–4 band
- United Transportation Union v. State Bar of Michigan401 U.S. 576Apr 5, 1971 · 401 U.S. 576Attorneys5–36–3 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.
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.