|   |
|
| | | Nike v. Kasky (docket #: 02-575 ) (2003)
[Findlaw]
| |
Argument Date
| 04/23/2003 |
|---|
|
Decided
| 6/26/03 |
|---|
|
Supreme Court Vote
| 6-3 |
|---|
|
Supreme Court Ruling
| Writ of certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted |
|---|
|
|
| | | Issue | Whether, consistent with the First Amendment, Nike, Inc. can be sued for violating state consumer-protection laws concerning allegedly false advertising when such statements were made in response to charges by Nike’s critics and concerned wages, treatment and safety conditions of Nike’s workers at overseas factories. | |
|---|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dissenting Opinion
|
Breyer, J., O'Connor, J., & Kennedy, J. |
|
Certiorari Granted
|
01/10/2003 |
|
Lower Court
|
California Supreme Court |
|
Lower Court Ruling
|
The California Supreme Court denied the First Amendment claim in Kasky v. Nike (2002). |
|
Oral Arguments
|
Transcript
audio (Oyez)
[Oyez]
|
| Lawyers |
|
| Briefs |
|
| News Stories & Commentary |
|
| Tony Mauro Analysis |
|
| Other |
Kerr, Robert L., "From Sullivan to Nike: Will the Noble Purpose of the Landmark Free Speech Case be Subverted to Immunize False Advertising?," 9 Communication Law and Policy 525-566 (2004)
|
Symposium, "Nike v. Kasky & The Modern Commercial Speech Doctrine," 54 Case Western Reserve Law Review 954-1299 (2004) (13 contributors)
|
Terilli, Samuel A., "Nike v. Kasky & the Running-But-Going-Nowhere Commercial Speech Debate," 10 Communication Law and Policy 383-432 (2005)
|
|
|
|
Please Also See:
|
|
|
Free speech may prove costly for corporations
|
|
|
| |