ipl-logo

Virginia State Board Of Pharmacy V Us Consumer Council Case Study

1014 Words5 Pages

Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976)

Topic: Authority of the United States Supreme Court to question the lawfulness of the Virginia State Board of Pharmacy statute under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Relevant Facts: Consumers of prescription drugs brought suit against the Virginia State Board of Pharmacy (Appellant) challenging a Virginia statute that prohibited every licensed pharmacist to advertise prescription drug prices. According to Va. Code Ann. 54-524.35 (1974) statute, a licensed pharmacist in Virginia was guilty of unprofessional conduct if he “publishes, advertises or promotes directly or indirectly, in any manner whatsoever, any amount, price, fee, premium discount, rebate or credit terms…for any drugs which may be dispensed only by prescription.” The Virginia State Citizens Consumer Council (Appellee) claimed that the statute violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. A Three-Judge panel of the United States District Court ruled that portion …show more content…

Whether the appellees as receivers of information have a constitutional right to obtain commercial facts, including the price of prescription drugs, under the protection of the First Amendment?

2. Whether commercial speech, including the advertisement of prescription drug prices, is wholly outside the protections of the First Amendment because its sole purpose is a commercial transaction?

Brief Answers:

1. Yes. The First Amendment protects all parts of communication: its source and recipients. Therefore, Virginia consumers are entitled to have free access to the flow of commercial information regarding the prescription medicines.

2. No. Although the advertisements of prescription medicines prices have a purely economic purpose, they can also promote valuable information for consumers. As a result, the First Amendment protects this commercial information.

Court’s Reasoning (Mr. Justice Blackmun for 7-1

Open Document