Thomas, J., concurring

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 98—387

GREATER NEW ORLEANS BROADCASTING ASSOCIATION, INC., etc., et al., PETI-
TIONERS v. UNITED STATES et al.

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

[June 14, 1999]

Justice Thomas, concurring in the judgment.

I continue to adhere to my view that “[i]n cases such as this, in which the government’s asserted interest is to keep legal users of a product or service ignorant in order to manipulate their choices in the marketplace,” the Central Hudson test should not be applied because “such an ‘interest’ is per se illegitimate and can no more justify regulation of ‘commercial speech’ than it can justify regulation of ‘noncommercial’ speech.” 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484, 518 (1996) (concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). Accordingly, I concur only in the judgment.