Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Corp. — Stevens, J., dissenting

Summary

Justice Stevens dissents, arguing the majority mischaracterized the case as an improper facial challenge and that the state's discrimination in providing arrestee information based on the respondent's commercial speech purpose violates the First Amendment. He argues that since the state allows broad access otherwise, the privacy justification is insufficient, and the government cannot deny benefits on a basis infringing constitutional rights. Justice Ginsburg and Justice Scalia concurred in the judgment on separate grounds.