The U.S. Supreme Court case Lorillard Tobacco Company, et al. v. Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al., 2000 revolved around the constitutionality of certain advertising regulations imposed by the state of Massachusetts on tobacco products to reduce underage smoking. The court ruled in favor of Lorillard Tobacco Company and other tobacco manufacturers and retailers stating that some restrictions were unconstitutional as they violated their First Amendment rights to commercial speech (free speech). These included a ban on outdoor advertisements within 1,000 feet from schools or playgrounds and requirements for indoor signs to be placed at least five feet above floor level where children might see them; these were deemed too broad geographically thus infrallying disproportionately upon urban areas with more compact spaces than rural ones.

In the dissenting opinion for Lorillard Tobacco Company v. Reilly, Justice Stevens argued that Massachusetts' regulations on tobacco advertising were constitutional and did not violate the First Amendment rights of tobacco companies. He contended that these rules were a valid exercise of state power aimed at protecting public health by reducing youth smoking rates. The majority's view, he believed, failed to give proper deference to the state's judgment about how best to protect its citizens from harmful products like cigarettes. Furthermore, he disagreed with their assertion that there was insufficient evidence linking advertising restrictions with decreased consumption among young people; in his view, ample empirical data supported this connection. Lastly, Justice Stevens criticized the majority for applying an overly stringent standard of review which undermined states' ability to regulate commerce within their borders.