The U.S. Supreme Court case 44 Liquormart, Inc. and Peoples Super Liquor Stores, Inc. v. Rhode Island and Rhode Island Liquor Stores Association in 1995 revolved around a state law that prohibited the advertisement of retail liquor prices except at the place of sale. The plaintiffs, two liquor retailers, argued that this ban violated their First Amendment rights to commercial speech - i.e., their right to advertise their products freely. The defendants contended that the restriction was necessary for promoting temperance by discouraging high-volume sales driven by price competition among sellers. In a unanimous decision (though with multiple concurring opinions), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, striking down Rhode Island's advertising ban as unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s protection of commercial speech doctrine established in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp v Public Service Commission (1980). It held that while states have substantial interest in promoting sobriety among citizens or reducing alcohol consumption through regulation measures like taxation or direct controls on volume/availability; they cannot seek to achieve these goals by restricting truthful information about legal but potentially harmful products from reaching consumers.

In the dissenting opinion for 44 Liquormart, Inc. and Peoples Super Liquor Stores, Inc. v. Rhode Island and Rhode Island Liquor Stores Association, Justice O'Connor argued that the state of Rhode Island had a substantial interest in regulating alcohol consumption through its ban on liquor price advertising. She contended that this regulation was not more extensive than necessary to serve that interest as it directly advanced the government's goals without completely banning such advertisements but only limiting them to certain places like inside liquor stores themselves or newspapers with limited circulation among minors. The majority's decision to strike down this law based on First Amendment grounds failed to give due respect and deference to states' powers under the Twenty-first Amendment which grants them broad authority over controlling alcohol distribution within their borders according her view.