Case Overview

Legal Principle at Issue

Do Vermonts mandatory limits on candidate expenditures violate the First Amendment as interpreted in Buckley v. Valeo (1976)?

Action

Affirmed (includes modified). Petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition.

Cite this page

  • SORRELL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VERMONT, et al. v. IMS HEALTH INC. ET AL. (n.d.). First Amendment Library. Retrieved April 11, 2025, from https://www.thefire.org/supreme-court/sorrell-attorney-general-vermont-et-al-v-ims-health-inc-et-al
  • SORRELL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VERMONT, et al. v. IMS HEALTH INC. ET AL, First Amendment Library, https://www.thefire.org/supreme-court/sorrell-attorney-general-vermont-et-al-v-ims-health-inc-et-al (last visited 11 Apr. 2025).
  • Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). "SORRELL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VERMONT, et al. v. IMS HEALTH INC. ET AL." Oyez. https://www.thefire.org/supreme-court/sorrell-attorney-general-vermont-et-al-v-ims-health-inc-et-al (accessed April 11, 2025).
  • "SORRELL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VERMONT, et al. v. IMS HEALTH INC. ET AL." First Amendment Library. Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), n.d. 11 Apr. 2025, www.thefire.org/supreme-court/sorrell-attorney-general-vermont-et-al-v-ims-health-inc-et-al.
Share