Changes

On the [[Negative Commerce Clause]], Justice Thomas is more reliable than Justice Scalia in defending state laws that discriminate against out-of-state companies. Justice Thomas, for example, wrote the dissent in the 5-4 decision invalidating a Michigan law that limited shipments by out-of-state wineries.<ref>''[[Granholm v. Heald]]''</ref>  Justice Scalia split from Justice Thomas and surprisingly joined the more [[liberal]] majority in that case, which was presented using the issue of the [[Negative Commerce Clause]] but then decided based on slightly different grounds.

On the [[Negative Commerce Clause]], Justice Thomas is more reliable than Justice Scalia in defending state laws that discriminate against out-of-state companies. Justice Thomas, for example, wrote the dissent in the 5-4 decision invalidating a Michigan law that limited shipments by out-of-state wineries.<ref>''[[Granholm v. Heald]]''</ref>  Justice Scalia split from Justice Thomas and surprisingly joined the more [[liberal]] majority in that case, which was presented using the issue of the [[Negative Commerce Clause]] but then decided based on slightly different grounds.

On the issue of compelled speech, Justice Thomas stronger than Justice Scalia in defending a [[First Amendment]] right not to pay for something with which one disagrees:<ref>United States v. United Foods, 533 U.S. 405, 418-19 (2001) (Thomas, J., concurring)</ref>

On the issue of compelled speech, Justice Thomas stronger than Justice Scalia in defending a [[First Amendment]] right not to pay for something with which one disagrees:<ref>[[United States v. United Foods]], 533 U.S. 405, 418-19 (2001) (Thomas, J., concurring)</ref>

:I write separately, however, to reiterate my views that "paying money for the purposes of advertising involves speech," and that "compelling speech raises a First Amendment issue just as much as restricting speech." Id. at 504 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Any regulation that compels the funding of advertising must be subjected to the most stringent First Amendment scrutiny.  

:I write separately, however, to reiterate my views that "paying money for the purposes of advertising involves speech," and that "compelling speech raises a First Amendment issue just as much as restricting speech." Id. at 504 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Any regulation that compels the funding of advertising must be subjected to the most stringent First Amendment scrutiny.