Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman
United States Supreme Court
581 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1144, 197 L. Ed. 2d 442 (2017)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
New York enacted a law in 1984 that prohibited merchants from charging customers a surcharge to use a credit card instead of paying by cash or check. At the time, credit-card issuers used contracts that already prohibited merchants from charging those surcharges. After several major credit-card issuers dropped their contractual prohibitions in 2013, Expressions Hair Design and four other New York businesses and their owners (plaintiffs) sued state attorney general Eric Schneiderman and three state district attorneys (defendants), challenging the law’s constitutionality. Specifically, the merchants argued that the law violated the First Amendment by restricting merchant speech and depended on an unconstitutionally vague difference between charging credit-card surcharges and giving cash-customer discounts. The merchants wanted to post one sticker price, with a note that credit-card customers would be charged an additional 3 percent or equivalent surcharge, such as “$10 for a haircut, with a $0.30 surcharge for credit-card users.” The trial court ruled for the merchants, but the Second Circuit vacated with instructions to dismiss the merchants’ claims, reasoning that requiring sticker and credit-card pricing to match regulated only conduct, not speech. The merchants appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Roberts, C.J.)
Concurrence (Breyer, J.)
Concurrence (Sotomayor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
