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
The case concerns whether merchants may charge different prices for cash and credit transactions, a practice the petitioners describe as a dual‑pricing scheme.
Background and question before the Court
The central question is whether New York’s prohibition on charging different prices for cash versus credit constitutes a restriction on speech protected by the First Amendment.
What each side argues
Petitioners
According to Expressions Hair Design, expressions Hair Design engages in dual pricing, charging one price for cash purchases and a higher price for credit purchases, which it characterizes as a discount.
Petitioners contend that the Attorney General’s office has issued an interpretation that confirms a plain‑reading of the statute as requiring a single‑price scheme.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument began at 10:04 a.m. before the Supreme Court.
The case file was submitted to the Court at 11:07 a.m. during the oral argument session.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
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.
- 6b1f31ea8beba766aa6e-r1-050c8e7670756747.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 25, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.