Changes

In '''''Bates v. State Bar of Arizona'''''<ref>The actual title of the case is ''John R. Bates and Van O'Steen v. State Bar of Arizona'', but in legal literature is usually shortened as shown.</ref>, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that enforcement of a ban on [[attorney]] advertising would violate the [[First Amendment|First]] and [[Fourteenth Amendment]] rights of attorneys seeking to advertise the fees they charged for certain routine legal services.

In '''''Bates v. State Bar of Arizona''''',<ref>The actual title of the case is ''John R. Bates and Van O'Steen v. State Bar of Arizona'', but in legal literature is usually shortened as shown.</ref> 433 U.S. 350 (1977), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that enforcement of a ban on [[attorney]] advertising would violate the [[First Amendment|First]] and [[Fourteenth Amendment]] rights of attorneys seeking to advertise the fees they charged for certain routine legal services.

==Background of the Case==

==Background of the Case==

==Decision of the Supreme Court==

==Decision of the Supreme Court==

In a fragmented decision, the Court ruled unanimously against the partners on their Sherman Act claims, but ruled 5-4 in favor of their First Amendment claims.

In a fragmented decision, the Court ruled unanimously against the partners on their Sherman Act claims, but ruled 5–4 in favor of their First Amendment claims.

Writing for the majority, Justice Blackmum (joined by Justices Brennan, White, Marshall, and Stevens) upheld the Arizona court's ruling on the Sherman Act claims, arguing that because the actions were taken by a sovereign (the Arizona Supreme Court made the rules that the State Bar merely enforces). they were exempt from the Sherman Act.  However, Justice Blackmun argued that a complete ban on advertising violated the First Amendment, citing the Virginia Pharmacy case previously decided.  The opinion recognized that there could be reasonable restrictions placed on the advertising, but that was a case for another day.

Writing for the majority, Justice Blackmum (joined by Justices Brennan, White, Marshall, and Stevens) upheld the Arizona court's ruling on the Sherman Act claims, arguing that because the actions were taken by a sovereign (the Arizona Supreme Court made the rules that the State Bar merely enforces). they were exempt from the Sherman Act.  However, Justice Blackmun argued that a complete ban on advertising violated the First Amendment, citing the Virginia Pharmacy case previously decided.  The opinion recognized that there could be reasonable restrictions placed on the advertising, but that was a case for another day.