skip navigation
search

THOMPSON V. WESTERN STATES MEDICAL CENTER (01-344) 535 U. S. 357 (2002)
238 F.3d 1090, affirmed.
Syllabus
 
Opinion
[ O’Connor ]
Concurrence
[ Thomas ]
Dissent
[ Breyer ]
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version

535 U.S. ____ (2002)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


No. 01—344

TOMMY G. THOMPSON, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., PETITIONERS v. WESTERN STATES MEDICAL CENTER et al.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[April 29, 2002]

    Justice Thomas, concurring.

    I concur because I agree with the Court’s application of the test set forth in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n. of N. Y., 447 U.S. 557 (1980). I continue, however, to adhere to my view that cases such as this should not be analyzed under the Central Hudson test. “I do not believe that such a test should be applied to a restriction of ‘commercial’ speech, at least when, as here, the asserted interest is one that is to be achieved through keeping would-be recipients of the speech in the dark.” 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484, 523 (1996) (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment).