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 May 23, 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 23 May 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 May 23, 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. 23 May 2025, www.thefire.org/supreme-court/sorrell-attorney-general-vermont-et-al-v-ims-health-inc-et-al.
Share