Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that price controls, when used to prohibit the communication of prices of goods with regards to a surcharge, was a regulation of speech and required an analysis of the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech. In a five-Justice majority, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Associate Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Kagan, wrote that, "In regulating the communication of prices rather than prices themselves," the law in question "regulates speech."
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman (en)
|
rdfs:comment
| - Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that price controls, when used to prohibit the communication of prices of goods with regards to a surcharge, was a regulation of speech and required an analysis of the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech. In a five-Justice majority, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Associate Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Kagan, wrote that, "In regulating the communication of prices rather than prices themselves," the law in question "regulates speech." (en)
|
foaf:name
| - (en)
- Expressions Hair Design, Linda Fiacco, Brooklyn Farmacy & Soda Fountain, Inc., Peter Freeman, Bunda Starr Corp., Donna Pabst, Five Points Academy, Steve Milles, Patio.com, and David Ross v.Eric T. Schneiderman, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of New York;Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., in his official capacity as District Attorney of New York County;Kenneth P. Thompson, in his official capacity as District Attorney of Kings County, defendants (en)
|
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
docket
| |
JoinMajority
| - Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Kagan (en)
|
LawsApplied
| - U.S. Const. amend. I, New York General Business Law ยง518 (en)
|
oyez
| |
ParallelCitations
| |
Prior
| |
USPage
| |
USVol
| |
ArgueDate
| |
ArgueYear
| |
case
| - Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, (en)
|
DecideDate
| |
DecideYear
| |
fullname
| - Expressions Hair Design, Linda Fiacco, Brooklyn Farmacy & Soda Fountain, Inc., Peter Freeman, Bunda Starr Corp., Donna Pabst, Five Points Academy, Steve Milles, Patio.com, and David Ross v. Eric T. Schneiderman, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of New York; Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., in his official capacity as District Attorney of New York County; Kenneth P. Thompson, in his official capacity as District Attorney of Kings County, defendants (en)
|
Holding
| - Price controls, when used to prevent certain communication of the price of a good with regards to a surcharge, implicate freedom of speech as protected under the First Amendment. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and remanded. (en)
|
justia
| |
Litigants
| - Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman (en)
|
majority
| |
other source
| |
other url
| |
has abstract
| - Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that price controls, when used to prohibit the communication of prices of goods with regards to a surcharge, was a regulation of speech and required an analysis of the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech. In a five-Justice majority, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Associate Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Kagan, wrote that, "In regulating the communication of prices rather than prices themselves," the law in question "regulates speech." (en)
|
Concurrence
| - Sotomayor (en)
- Breyer (en)
|
JoinConcurrence
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |