Court Opinion

ID: 9433834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:41:26.963441+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:44.258751
License: Public Domain

Justice Thomas,
concurring in the judgment.
I continue to adhere to my view that “[i]n eases such as this, in which the government’s asserted interest is to keep legal users of a product or service ignorant in order to manipulate their choices in the marketplace,” the Central Hudson test should not be applied because “such an ‘interest’ is per se illegitimate and can no more justify regulation of ‘commercial speech’ than it can justify regulation of ‘noncommercial’ speech.” 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U. S. 484, 518 (1996) (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Accordingly, I concur only in the judgment.