Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman
| Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman | |
|---|---|
| Argued January 10, 2017 Decided March 29, 2017 | |
| Full case name | Expressions Hair Design, Linda Fiacco, Brooklyn Farmacy & Soda Fountain, Inc., Peter Freeman, Bunda Starr Corp., Donna Pabst, Five Points Academy, Steve Milles, Patio.com, and David Ross v. Eric T. Schneiderman, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of New York; Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., in his official capacity as District Attorney of New York County; Kenneth P. Thompson, in his official capacity as District Attorney of Kings County, defendants |
| Docket no. | 15-1391 |
| Citations | 581 U.S. ___ (more) 137 S. Ct. 1144; 197 L. Ed. 2d 442 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 975 F. Supp. 2d 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2013); reversed, 808 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2015); cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 30 (2016). |
| Holding | |
| Price controls, when used to prevent certain communication of the price of a good with regards to a surcharge, implicate freedom of speech as protected under the First Amendment. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and remanded. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Roberts, joined by Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Breyer (in judgment) |
| Concurrence | Sotomayor (in judgment), joined by Alito |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I, New York General Business Law §518 | |
Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that price controls, when used to prohibit the communication of prices of goods with regards to a surcharge, was a regulation of speech and required an analysis of the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech.
In a five-Justice majority, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Associate Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Kagan, wrote that, "In regulating the communication of prices rather than prices themselves," the law in question "regulates speech."