Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman
137 S. Ct. 1144 · Decided March 29, 2017 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman was decided on March 29, 2017 unanimously (8–0). The Court vacated the lower court's decision and remanded the case. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Commercial speech, excluding attorneys” in the First Amendment area.
Read the opinion
- CourtListener (Free Law Project) — opinion text
- Supreme Court of the United States — slip opinions, October Term 2016
Case details
- Citations
- 137 S. Ct. 1144 · 197 L. Ed. 2d 442 · 2017 U.S. LEXIS 2186
- Docket number
- 15-1391
- Decided
- March 29, 2017
- Argued
- January 10, 2017
- Court era
- Roberts Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 8–0 (unanimous)
- Majority opinion
- John G. Roberts Jr.
- Opinion assigned by
- John G. Roberts Jr.
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Commercial speech, excluding attorneys
- Issue area
- First Amendment
- Legal provision
- First Amendment (speech, press, and assembly)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy | Majority | |
| Justice Clarence Thomas | Majority | |
| Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg | Majority | |
| Justice Stephen G. Breyer | Special concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. | Special concurrence | |
| Justice Sonia Sotomayor | Special concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Elena Kagan | Majority |
Full case caption
Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman
SCDB identifiers: case 2016-035, docket 2016-035-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Commercial speech, excluding attorneys”
- City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Texas Inc
- Sorrell v. Ims Health Inc.Law held unconstitutional
- Mike Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association
- Tommy G. Thompson v. Western States Medical CenterLaw held unconstitutional
- United States and Department of Agriculture v. United Foods, Inc.Law held unconstitutional
- Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Corporation
Cases on the same legal provision: First Amendment (speech, press, and assembly)
- Matal v. TamLaw held unconstitutional
- Packingham v. North CarolinaLaw held unconstitutional
- Heffernan v. City of Paterson
- Minnesota Voters Alliance v. ManskyLaw held unconstitutional
- Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach
- National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. BecerraLaw held unconstitutional
Same Term, same area (First Amendment)
- Matal v. TamLaw held unconstitutional
- Packingham v. North CarolinaLaw held unconstitutional
- Trinity Lutheran Church v. ComerLaw held unconstitutional
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error