proprietary information

In 1975 and 1976 Vincent Chiarella worked as a markup man in the New York composing room of Pandick Press, a financial printer. Among the documents he handled were five announcements of corporate takeover bids. The identities of the acquiring and target corporations were concealed by blank spaces or false names. The true names were sent to the printer on the night of the final printing. Chiarella deduced the names of the target companies from other information contained in the documents. Without disclosing his knowledge, Chiarella purchased stock in the target companies. He sold the shares immediately after the takeover attempts were made public. By this method he realized a gain of slightly more than $30,000 in the course of fourteen months. The Securities and Exchange Commission subsequently began an investigation of his trading activities. In May 1977 Chiarella entered into a consent decree with the Commission in which he agreed to return his profits to the sellers of the shares. On the same day he was discharged by Pandick Press. In January 1978 he was indicted on seventeen counts of violating § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. After he unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the indictment, he was tried and convicted on all counts in the District Court. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

In 2007 Vermont enacted the Prescription Confidentiality Law, also known as Act 80, whose central provision appears at Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §4631(d). The statute prohibits pharmacies, health insurers, electronic transmission intermediaries, and similar entities from selling, licensing, or exchanging prescriber-identifying information, and from permitting its use for marketing prescription drugs, unless the prescriber consents. It likewise bars pharmaceutical manufacturers and marketers from using such information for marketing absent consent. The prohibitions are subject to enumerated exceptions that permit dissemination and use for health-care research, enforcement of insurance formularies, patient care-management communications, law enforcement, and purposes otherwise provided by law. Pharmaceutical manufacturers promote brand-name drugs through a process called detailing, in which sales representatives visit physicians' offices to present information and samples. Pharmacies receive prescriber-identifying information when filling prescriptions pursuant to federal and state requirements and routinely sell that information to data-mining firms. The data miners analyze the records, produce reports on individual physicians' prescribing patterns, and lease the reports to pharmaceutical manufacturers under nondisclosure agreements so that detailers can tailor their presentations. Respondents are three Vermont data-mining companies and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, an association of brand-name drug manufacturers. They filed two consolidated actions in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. The suits named the Vermont Attorney General and other state officials as defendants. Respondents sought declaratory and injunctive relief on the ground that §4631(d) violates their First Amendment rights. After a bench trial the district court denied relief. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that the statute unconstitutionally burdens protected speech. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict with decisions of the First Circuit upholding similar statutes in Maine and New Hampshire. The Vermont Legislature accompanied the statute with formal findings. Detailing often conflicts with state public-health goals. Use of prescriber-identifying data increases the effectiveness of brand-name marketing. The resulting increase in prescriptions of newer, more expensive drugs raises healthcare costs. The Act also funded an evidence-based prescription-drug education program intended to promote therapeutic and cost-effective prescribing.

In the latter part of 1951, a dispute arose between steel companies including Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. and their employees represented by the United Steelworkers of America, C.I.O., over terms and conditions to be included in new collective bargaining agreements. Long-continued conferences failed to resolve the dispute. On December 18, 1951, the union gave notice of an intention to strike when the existing agreements expired on December 31. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service intervened without success. On December 22, 1951, President Truman referred the dispute to the Federal Wage Stabilization Board to investigate and make recommendations for fair and equitable terms of settlement. The Board's report resulted in no settlement. On April 4, 1952, the union gave notice of a nationwide strike to begin at 12:01 a.m. on April 9. The President believed that the proposed work stoppage would immediately jeopardize national defense because steel is an indispensable component of substantially all weapons and other war materials. A few hours before the strike was to begin, on April 8, 1952, the President issued Executive Order 10340 directing the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of most of the steel mills and keep them running. The Secretary immediately issued possessory orders calling upon the presidents of the seized companies to serve as operating managers for the United States. Obeying the Secretary's orders under protest, the companies brought proceedings against him in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Their complaints charged that the seizure was not authorized by an act of Congress or by any constitutional provision and asked the court to declare the orders invalid and to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions. The Government opposed the motion for a preliminary injunction, asserting that the President had inherent power supported by the Constitution, historical precedent, and court decisions. On April 30, 1952, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction restraining the Secretary from continuing the seizure and possession of the plants. On the same day the Court of Appeals stayed the District Court's injunction. Deeming it best that the issues be promptly decided by the Supreme Court, the Court granted certiorari on May 3, 1952, and set the cause for argument on May 12.