THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, May 2, 1995 TAG: 9505020296
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A2 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium: 52 lines
The Supreme Court will decide whether states may promote sobriety by banning price advertising for liquor.
The court said Monday it will review a free-speech challenge to Rhode Island's price-advertising ban, enforced since 1956 as an attempt to reduce consumption of alcoholic beverages.
The justices were told many states have similar laws that ban or in some way limit liquor price advertising.
A challenge to Pennsylvania's ban on price advertising, apparently the most similar to Rhode Island's, also is pending before the high court. It likely will not be acted on until the justices reach a decision in the Rhode Island case.
Two weeks ago, the nation's highest court struck down a federal law that banned brewers from putting alcohol-content information on the labels of beer cans and bottles.
The justices said the 1935 federal law, aimed at preventing ``strength wars'' among beer manufacturers, violated free-speech rights.
Rhode Island's price-advertising ban is being attacked by a Johnston liquor store, 44 Liquormart Inc., and by Peoples Super Liquor Stores Inc., which sells liquor to Rhode Island residents from its two Massachusetts stores.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban last year, ruling that it is a constitutionally permissible limitation on commercial speech.
Rhode Island law allows advertising for alcoholic beverages, but requires publishers to exclude any mention of prices.
The prohibition was challenged after 44 Liquormart was informed in 1991 that it was in violation of the state law. A federal trial judge ruled that the ban violated free-speech rights, but the 1st Circuit court reversed that ruling.
In other matters Monday, the court:
Let stand rulings that required a Bloomingdale, Mich., high school to take down a portrait of Jesus Christ that had been displayed on a hallway wall for 30 years. School officials had argued that displaying the portrait should be allowed because it offered no religious message and raised no church-state problem.
Refused to reinstate a $1.2 million award won, and then lost, by two Columbia, Mo., residents who say police did not adequately protect their family from domestic violence.
KEYWORDS: U.S SUPREME COURT RULING ALCOHOL LIQUOR by CNB