This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Vermont enacted a statute that restricts the sale of prescribing‑information about doctors, aiming to protect physician privacy and control over that data.
The statute also seeks to contain health‑care costs by promoting the use of less expensive drugs and ensuring prescribers receive unbiased information.
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioner (Vermont Attorney General)
According to BRIDGET C. ASAY, the statute’s purpose is to let doctors decide whether sales representatives have access to prescribing information about them.
According to Ms. Asay, the first clause of the statute restricts sales except for the exemptions listed in the law.
According to Vermont, if Vermont truly protected doctors’ privacy, it would not contain the many exemptions; a genuine privacy provision would make the information private.
According to State of Vermont, the statute includes a parallel formulary‑compliance exemption and other provisions that reflect advocacy by insurance companies.
Respondent (IMS Health)
Pending. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia: Could the data be used for purposes other than those intended by the statute?
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito: Could you answer yes or no if you are changing your position?
According to Justice Kagan, justice Kagan: Please explain how you will interpret and apply the statute going forward.
Justice Scalia: When you say "privacy," do you mean the prescriber's concern that people will know he prescribed certain drugs?
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts noted that there is another interest besides the State's concern about health‑care costs, namely the physicians' privacy interests.
According to Justice BREYER, justice Breyer: Does the Constitution forbid controlling advertising to prevent false and misleading practices?
According to Justice SOTOMAYOR, justice Sotomayor: With the Internet and computers, there is virtually no privacy for individuals.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts: Were there findings with respect to the statute as enacted?
Justice Breyer: Are you saying that all those should be reexamined?
- [1] ee374385e446b4d85abd-r1-d0a0d77f92a05704.pdf, p. 4
- [2] ee374385e446b4d85abd-r1-d0a0d77f92a05704.pdf, p. 20
- [3] ee374385e446b4d85abd-r1-d0a0d77f92a05704.pdf, p. 21
- [4] ee374385e446b4d85abd-r1-d0a0d77f92a05704.pdf, p. 24
- [5] ee374385e446b4d85abd-r1-d0a0d77f92a05704.pdf, p. 38
- [6] ee374385e446b4d85abd-r1-d0a0d77f92a05704.pdf, p. 41
- [7] ee374385e446b4d85abd-r1-d0a0d77f92a05704.pdf, p. 45
- [8] ee374385e446b4d85abd-r1-d0a0d77f92a05704.pdf, p. 66
- [9] ee374385e446b4d85abd-r1-d0a0d77f92a05704.pdf, p. 58
What the Court decided
Why it matters
The State argued that the statute was intended to help contain health‑care costs by promoting less costly drugs and ensuring prescribers received unbiased information.
According to Justice SOTOMAYOR, the discussion reflects broader concerns about privacy in the digital age, where individuals have little control over personal data.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- ee374385e446b4d85abd-r1-d0a0d77f92a05704.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 24, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.