SORRELL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VERMONT, et al. v. IMS HEALTH INC. ET AL
Supreme Court Cases
564 U.S. 552 (2011)
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.
Advocated for Respondent
- Timothy B. Tomasi View all cases
Advocated for Petitioner
- Mitchell L. Pearl View all cases
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.