Week 1 Case Study
44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island on p. 73-75
The Parties: 44 Liquromart.v.Rhode Island 517 U.S. 484 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1996)
History: Two Rhode Island Statues were prohibiting 44 Liquromart from advertising the price of their alcohol, and from the local Rhode Island news from posting or mentioning the prices of alcohol. The alcohol could be advertised directly on the item but the statue stated that the price was no authorized to seen from the street. 44 Liquormart filed a declaratory judgment against the state because they believed it was violating their first amendment right.
Facts:
* Rhode Island statues prohibited advertising the retail price of alcohol beverages. The first applied to vendors licensed in Rhode Island and well as out-of-state manufacturers, wholesalers, and shippers. It prohibited the advertising in any manner whatsoever. The second prohibited the broadcasting advertisements that made reference to the price of alcohol. * 44 Liquormart felt that their first amendment rights were being violated due to these statues and wanted them removed. * Rhode Island was attempting to deduce the consumption of alcohol in the state

Plaintiff’s theory: 44 Liquormart believe that their first amendment rights were being violated. Advertising has been a great part of businesses in informing “commercial speech” the consumer about the content and price of their product. They want the opportunity to legally advertise the alcohol and provide the consumer with the facts.

Defendant’s theory: Their statues were put in place to reduce the amount of alcohol consumption within the state.

Legal issues: Is the state of Rhode Island authorized to uphold these two statues claiming they want to reduce the consumption of alcohol? Does 44 Liquormart preserve the right to commercial speech as long as it is accurate and