October Term 2010 · Docket 10-779

Does Vermont's ban on selling doctor prescription data violate the First Amendment?

Vermont argues the law protects doctor privacy. IMS Health argues the law restricts speech.

Official caption
Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Bridget Asay argued the law protects doctor autonomy.

    She stated patient information is protected under HIPAA.

    IMS Health argued the law restricts speech.

    They referenced the red brief for statutory findings.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Vermont enacted a law restricting the sale of prescription data. IMS Health challenged the law in federal court. The lower court ruled in favor of IMS Health. Vermont appealed to the Supreme Court.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 26, 2011.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Vermont wants the law upheld to protect doctor autonomy.

IMS Health wants the law struck down to sell data freely.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Vermont argues the law protects physician privacy and autonomy.

IMS Health argues the law restricts commercial speech.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked if doctors can simply refuse to talk to marketers.

Justice Alito asked if the statute permits selling data to universities.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The case defines the scope of state power over commercial data. It balances privacy rights against free speech protections. The outcome shapes how states regulate information markets.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON