In CASE 1.1 Sorrell v.IMS Health Inc.,drug manufacturers challenged as unconstitutional a Vermont statute prohibiting pharmacies from selling prescriber-identifying information for marketing prescription drugs without the consent of prescribers.What was the U.S.Supreme Court ruling in this matter?
A) Although speech promoting marketing was not protected by the First Amendment,the law was unconstitutional based on the due process clause.
B) The statute regulated commercial speech,which was evaluated under an "intermediate" standard and the law was,therefore,constitutional.
C) The statute did not involve constitutional issues and was,therefore,a permissible type of regulation.
D) The conduct prohibited by the law was protected by the First Amendment and the law was unconstitutional.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the conduct prohibited by the Vermont statute was protected by the First Amendment, and therefore, the law was unconstitutional. This decision emphasized the protection of free speech, even in the context of commercial activities such as marketing prescription drugs.

In CASE 11 Sorrell V