Cite as: 527 U. S. 173 (1999)
Thomas, J., concurring in judgment
of review. I agree with the Court that that standard has not been met here, and I join its opinion.
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) (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Accordingly, I concur only in the judgment.
197
Page: Index Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Last modified: October 4, 2007