|   |
|
| | | Thompson v. Western States Medical Center (docket #:01-344) (2002)
[Findlaw]
First Amendment claim affirmed | |
Argument Date
| 02/26/2002 |
|---|
|
Decided
| 04/29/2002 |
|---|
|
Supreme Court Vote
| 5-4 |
|---|
|
Supreme Court Ruling
| First Amendment claim sustained. |
|---|
|
|
| | | Issue | In the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA), Congress enacted a limited exemption from the new drug approval (and certain other) requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, for drugs compounded by pharmacists. (21 U.S.C. §353a) The question presented is whether FDAMA’s limitation of that exemption to pharmacists who do not solicit prescriptions for or advertise specific compounded drugs violates the First Amendment. | |
|---|
|
| |
|
|
|
Majority Opinion
|
per Justice O’Connor |
|
Concurring Opinion
|
with Thomas concurring |
|
Dissenting Opinion
|
Breyer dissenting (joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, & Ginsburg) |
|
Certiorari Granted
|
10/29/2001 |
|
Lower Court
|
9th Circuit |
|
Lower Court Ruling
|
"We hold that § 353a(a) and § 353a(c)’s restrictions on commercial speech violate the First Amendment. These provisions may not be severed from the rest of the provisions in §353a. Accordingly, §353a is invalid in its entirety." Order of federal District |
|
Oral Arguments
|
Oral Arguments
[Oyez]
|
| Lawyers |
|
| Briefs |
Howard M. Hoffmann, Duane, Morris & Hecksher
|
|
| News Stories & Commentary |
|
| Panel - Lower Court |
Circuit Judges Mary M. Schroeder
|
|
| Tony Mauro Analysis |
|
| Opinion - Lower Court |
|
| Other |
Brody, Steven G. & Johnson, Bruce E.H., ADVERTISING AND COMMERCIAL SPEECH: A FIRST AMENDMENT GUIDE (2nd ed., 2006) §6:8
|
|
|
|
| |
