DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

Oral argument in Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc.

Posted on April 27, 2011 by Dissent

Tuesday the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a corporate speech case, Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc. Adam Chandler of SCOTUSblog provides a recap:

…. almost all journalists covering Sorrell agreed that the Court was skeptical of Vermont’s restriction on pharmaceutical marketers’ use of drug prescription records. “So heavy was the [Court’s] defense of corporate expression,” writes SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston, “that the lawyer for Vermont . . . had to continue her argument under siege.” In the New York Times, Adam Liptak links the “somewhat esoteric” Sorrell case to Citizens United v. FEC , explaining that both cases involve “a fundamental First Amendment principle that has much engaged the justices lately: What role may the government play in regulating the marketplace of ideas?” USA Today, NPR, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times (also here), CNN, Bloomberg, the Associated Press (via the Boston Globe), theChristian Science Monitor, PBS NewsHour, Reuters, JURIST, the WSJ Health Blog, andConstitutional Law Prof Blog all have coverage of the argument.

Well, that doesn’t sound like it went well, but as I’ve just returned from a trip, I haven’t had time to read the transcript of the argument yet.

In related coverage, Frank Pasquale blogged on Concurring Opinions, Rethinking Sorrell v. IMS Health: Privacy as a First Amendment Value.

Category: Uncategorized

Post navigation

← GA: Thousands of personal documents found in Snellville trash
(follow-up) Former nail salon employee sentenced on credit card fraud →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Comstar LLC agrees to corrective action plan and fine to settle HHS OCR charges
  • Australian ransomware victims now must tell the government if they pay up
  • U.S. Sanctions Cloud Provider ‘Funnull’ as Top Source of ‘Pig Butchering’ Scams
  • Victoria’s Secret takes down website after security incident
  • U.S. Government Employee Arrested for Attempting to Provide Classified Information to Foreign Government
  • St. Cloud Provides Update on Ransomware Attack in 2024
  • Bradford Health Systems detected abnormal network activity in December 2023. They first sent out breach notices this week.
  • Websites selling hacking tools to cybercriminals seized
  • ConnectWise suspects cyberattack affecting some ScreenConnect customers was state-sponsored
  • Possible ransomware attack disrupts Maine and New Hampshire Covenant Health locations

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • Why AI May Be Listening In on Your Next Doctor’s Appointment
  • Watch out for activist judges trying to deprive us of our rights to safe reproductive healthcare
  • Nebraska Bans Minor Social Media Accounts Without Parental Consent
  • Trump Taps Palantir to Compile Data on Americans
  • The US Is Storing Migrant Children’s DNA in a Criminal Database
  • Home Pregnancy Test Company Wins Dismissal of Pixel Wiretapping Suit
  • The CCPA emerges as a new legal battleground for web tracking litigation

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.