Tobacco.org

US - Morris, Pay Us for Your Cigarette Damage! Philip Morris - No Way! Back to Court They Go. 

Should Philip Morris be responsible for paying for anti-smoking campaigns or for returning profits made over the years from sales of their dangerous products to consumers? Clearly, in the U.S., the original ruling had a huge impact on smoking and on cigarette sales, but the impacts did not extend into non-U.S. countries where companies like Philip Morris continued to feed misleading and deceptive marketing to smokers. The fact that Philip Morris could actually afford to pay either the damages or the penalties as originally ordered is a sign that cigarette smoking continues around the world, and that the companies are a long way from going up in a puff of their own smoke.

Jump to full article »

Big Tobacco, Obama Administration Duel in Supreme Court 

Tobacco giant Philip Morris USA, a division of Altria Group (MO), on Friday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out the landmark ruling determining that the cigarette industry had misled the public about the dangers of smoking. Hours later, the Obama administration asked the court to allow it access to nearly $300 billion in what it calls ill-gotten profits from the industry. The dueling filings are the latest chapter in an epic legal fight that has gone on for more than a decade.

In its filing, Philip Morris asked the court to overturn a massive racketeering verdict that forced the company to change its practices and increase its warnings about the dangers of smoking. Philip Morris argued that, in addition to letting the U.S. "pervert" the racketeering statute, known as RICO, the courts had violated its First Amendment rights.

"Absent further review, the government will henceforth be free to pervert RICO into a device for evading the legislative process, penalizing and chilling public debate on scientific matters, and constraining constitutionally protected speech through vague and sweeping injunctions," Philip Morris said in its appeal.

Jump to full article »

Tobacco Companies, U.S. Seek Supreme Court Hearing (Update1) 

The tobacco industry and the Obama administration filed dueling appeals with the U.S. Supreme Court on the government’s racketeering suit against the industry, a case that at one point sought $280 billion.

Cigarette makers, including Altria Group Inc.’s Philip Morris USA, are asking the court to review a ruling that they conspired to defraud the public about the dangers of smoking. The ruling could open companies to continuing judicial oversight and impose more stringent limits than the 2009 law that let the Food and Drug Administration regulate tobacco.

Philip Morris, the maker of Marlboros and the largest U.S. tobacco company, called the lawsuit “an unprecedented effort to use litigation to obtain extensive regulatory authority over the tobacco industry that, until recently, it had been unable to secure through the legislative process.” . . .

Private litigants have attempted to use Kessler’s 1,653- page opinion as ammunition in their own lawsuits against tobacco companies. A federal appeals court in Washington upheld Kessler’s ruling in May.

Philip Morris contends that, because the case affects its free-speech rights, the appeals court should have given closer scrutiny to Kessler’s factual conclusions. The cigarette maker, based in Richmond, Virginia, also argues that the lower courts improperly extended the reach of RICO.

Jump to full article »

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., ET AL. (PDF) 

QUESTION PRESENTED

Under 18 U.S.C. 1964(a), a district court has jurisdiction to issue "appropriate orders" to "prevent and restrain" violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.

Respondents were found liable for decades-long RICO violations that entailed a multi-faceted scheme to defraud the American public for the purpose of addicting smokers, deceiving actual and prospective smokers about the health effects and addictive properties of respondents' products, and thereby obtaining revenue from the sale of cigarettes. The question presented is:

Whether 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) categorically bars a district court from ordering disgorgement of ill-gotten gains as well as other equitable relief, such as smoking- cessation and public-education remedies, designed to redress the continuing consequences of RICO violations. . . .

Reasons for granting the petition...... 13

A.

The D.C. Circuit's narrow interpretation of Section 1964(a) conflicts with decisions of this Court and imposes unwarranted constraints on equitable jurisdiction ...... 14

B.

The D.C. Circuit's interpretation of Section 1964(a) conflicts with decisions of other courts of appeals ...... 26

C.

The court of appeals incorrectly decided an issue of exceptional importance . . .

1. The United States brought this action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq., against nine cigarette manufacturers and two related trade organizations. For the last half century, those defendants (collectively, respondents) have engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity and a conspiracy to engage in racketeering that has cost the lives and damaged the health of untold millions of Americans.

As the district court explained, "the evidentiary picture must be viewed in its totality in order to fully appreciate how massive the case is against [respondents], how irresponsible their actions have been, and how heedless they have been of the public welfare and the suffering caused by the cigarettes they sell." Pet. App. 298a.

Respondents' business "survives, and profits, from selling a highly addictive product which causes diseases that lead to a staggering number of deaths per year, an immeasurable amount of human suffering and economic loss, and a profound burden on our national health care system."

Jump to full article »

BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO (INVESTMENTS) LIMITED, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. (PDF) 

 QUESTIONS PRESENTED

"It is a longstanding principle of American law that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248 (1991) (Aramco) (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted).

The questions presented are:

1. Whether the D.C. Circuit correctly held, in conflict with decisions of other circuits and of this Court, that the traditional presumption against extraterritoriality is completely irrelevant to determining whether Congress intends a statute to reach the wholly foreign conduct of a foreign corporation, if such foreign conduct is alleged to have had a direct and substantial effect within the United States.

2. Whether the D.C. Circuit, in concluding that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. ¤ 1961 et seq. (RICO), regulates petitioner's wholly foreign conduct, improperly (a) ignored the presumption against extraterritoriality and affirmative evidence that Congress never intended RICO to apply extraterritorially; (b) borrowed from federal securities and antitrust cases the ill-suited "effects" test as a measure of RICO's extraterritorial reach; (c) approved a watered-down version of that test that conflicts with the test used by other circuits; and (d) relied on the U.S. "effects" of the U.S. conduct of other co-defendants and of the "overall" alleged RICO scheme. . . .

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION...... 9

I.

The D.C. Circuit's Decision Exacerbates Serious Conflicts And Confusion In The Lower Courts ...... 11

A. The Conflict Over The Meaning Of The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality...... 11

B. The Conflict And Confusion Over The Extraterritorial Reach Of RICO...... 17

C. The Conflict Over The Meaning Of The"Effects" Test...... 22

II. The Issues Presented Are Important And Recurring ...... 28

III. The Decision Below Is Erroneous

Jump to full article »

ALTRIA GROUP, INC., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Respondents. (PDF) 

QUESTION PRESENTED

May a corporation be found to have the necessary specific intent to defraud in a RICO case without any evidence that any particular individual in the corporation had such specific intent? . . .

B. Altria Is Solely a Holding Company ......2

C. The Basis for Altria's Liability Is Four Attorney Cease-and-Desist Letters ......3

D. There Is No Evidence That Any Officer or Employee of Altria Had Any Specific Intent to Defraud in Sending the Letters ......3

E. Before and at Trial, the Government Disclaimed Any Need to Prove That Any Individual Officer or Employee Had Specific Intent......4

F. The Courts Below Upheld Altria's Liability Without Any Evidence That Anyone at Altria Had Specific Intent to Defraud......5

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ......7 . . .

The RICO judgment against Altria was affirmed in the absence of any finding that any particular person caused the predicate acts of mail fraud charged against Altria with a specific intent to further any fraudulent scheme. Instead, both courts below apparently embraced the notion that Altria could be found liable under RICO pursuant to an inference based on findings that other corporate participants in the alleged RICO enterprise committed other acts with specific intent to defraud. That holding, which effectively dispensed with the need to prove specific intent as to each corporate defendant, conflicts with the holdings of other Courts of Appeals and presents an important issue that warrants this Court's review.

Jump to full article »

PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. (f/k/a Philip Morris, Inc.), Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. (PDF) 

 QUESTIONS PRESENTED

The United States brought this suit against the major domestic tobacco companies in an unprecedented effort to use litigation to obtain extensive regulatory authority over the tobacco industry that, until recently, it had been unable to secure through the legislative process. The government alleged that defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. ¤ 1961 et seq., by associating together to operate a purported racketeering enterprise for the purpose of defrauding the public about the health risks of smoking.

The government sought sweeping injunctive relief under 18 U.S.C. ¤ 1964(a), which authorizes courts to "prevent and restrain" likely future RICO violations.

After a nine-month trial, the district court issued a 1,600-page opinion that adopted the government's proposed findings of fact virtually verbatim. The court found that defendants had committed RICO predicate acts of mail and wire fraud based primarily on decades-old statements that challenged the public- health community's consensus on the health risks of smoking--statements that, if not found by the court to be fraudulent, would have been protected by the First Amendment. Notwithstanding the First Amendment rights at stake in the district court's determination, the D.C. Circuit applied the highly deferential clearly erroneous standard of review to the district court's factual findings, and affirmed in all significant respects. Shortly after that decision was issued, the President signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which granted the government extensive regulatory authority over the tobacco industry.

The questions presented are:

(1) Whether a court of appeals is required under the First Amendment and Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485 (1984), to undertake independent appellate review where a district court has found that speech is not constitutionally protected because it is fraudulent. . . .

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ......10

I.

THE COURT OF APPEALS' APPLICATION OF THE HIGHLY DEFERENTIAL CLEARLY ERRONEOUS STANDARD OF REVIEW CONFLICTS WITH THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT AND OTHER CIRCUITS......13

A.

The Decision Below Deepens An Existing Circuit Split Regarding The Scope Of Bose's Independent Appellate Review Requirement......14

B.

The Question Presented Has Profound Implications For Both First Amendment Rights And The Outcome Of This Exceptionally Important Case ......19  v

II. THE COURT OF APPEALS' HOLDING DISREGARDS THE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDS OF RICO AND ARTICLE III ......24

A.

The Court Of Appeals' Conclusion That A Group Of Corporations Can Form An "Associated In Fact" RICO Enterprise Conflicts With The Plain Language Of RICO ......24

B.

Because The MSA And The Newly Enacted FDA Act Foreclose Future Racketeering, The District Court Lacked Jurisdiction To Issue Injunctive Relief......28

III. THE COURT OF APPEALS CONTRAVENED FED. R. CIV. P. 65(d) AND THIS COURT'S PRECEDENT WHEN IT RELIED ON THE DISTRICT COURT'S FACTUAL FINDINGS TO UPHOLD ITS VAGUE INJUNCTIONS ......31

(2) Whether federal courts may exercise injunctive jurisdiction under RICO and Article III of the Constitution where there is no statutory "enterprise" and any reasonable likelihood of future violations has been extinguished by, among other things, extensive federal tobacco legislation.

(3) Whether injunctions that track broad statutory commands may be upheld under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) and this Court's precedent by "read[ing]" them "in the context" of the district court's voluminous factual findings.

Jump to full article »

TOBACCO-FREE KIDS ACTION FUND, et al., Petitioners, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., et al., Respondents. (PDF) 

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ... 14

I.

THE COURT OF APPEALS’ RULINGS CONFLICT WITH DECISIONS OF OTHER COURTS OF APPEALS ...... 16

II.

REVIEW IS ALSO WARRANTED BECAUSE THIS APPEAL CONCERNS A MATTER OF EXCEPTIONAL IMPORTANCE ...... 20

III.

THE RULINGS BELOW ALSO CONFLICT WITH THIS COURT’S PRECEDENTS ...... 21

A.

The Court Of Appeals’ Ruling That Public Education and Tobacco Cessation Remedies May Not Be Considered Pursuant To RICO Section 1964(a) Conflicts With This Court’s RICO And Antitrust Precedents ...... 21

B.

The Court Of Appeals’ Rulings Also Conflict With This Court’s Precedents Concerning The Scope Of A District Court’s Equitable Powers ...... 27 . . .

CONCLUSION

This Court should grant review and restore to the district court the authority Congress granted in RICO § 1964(a). With its authority properly restored, the district court can bring full force to its formidable findings, and consider in the first instance which of the remedies advanced by the United States and the Public Health Advocates will most appropriately redress the tobacco companies’ far-reaching misconduct in this extremely unique case.

Jump to full article »

R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY and BROWN & WILLIAMSON HOLDINGS, INC., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. (PDF) 

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION...... 5

I.

This Case Is Exceptionally Important Because It Presents An Unprecedented Distortion Of The Fraud Statutes To Punish The Speech Of One Side Of A Public Debate...... 5

II.

The Panel Ignored Numerous Requirements Of The Fraud Statutes and The First Amendment, In Conflict With Decisions Of This Court And Other Circuits ...... 11

A.

The First Amendment Informs And Cabins The Law Of Fraud ...... 11

B. The Panel Eviscerated All Of These Essential Requirements Of Fraud Actions ...... 14

III. The Panel's Finding On "Lights" Descriptors Conflicts With Other Circuits And This Court's Precedents ...... 29

IV. The "Corrective Statements" Remedy Violates The First Amendment And ¤ 1964(a) ...... 34

Jump to full article »

U.S. seeks $280 billion tobacco remedy 

The Obama Administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to restore the government's power to demand a huge turnover of tobacco industry profits, putting it in position to recover some $280 billion of what federal lawyers called "ill-gotten gains." In a series of industry appeals, also filed Friday, the tobacco companies asked the Court to overturn a ruling that they did violate the federal RICO anti-racketeering law by the way they marketed cigarettes and other smoking products. By the time new filings are finished later today, the Court may have as many as six cases seeking review.

Jump to full article »

Big Tobacco Appeals to Supreme Court Over Racketeering Ruling 

Cigarette giants Philip Morris and Altria have asked the Supreme Court to reverse a unanimous decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals holding that the major tobacco companies engaged in a length illegal scheme which violated the violated federal racketeering laws for deceiving the public about the dangers of smoking, and imposed penalties and restrictions on their conduct, says a man who has been dubbed the "Ralph Nader of the Tobacco Industry" for encouraging the major private and state law suits against the tobacco industry, and for helping to develop the legal theories under which this law suit was brought. . . .

"It's unlikely the U.S. Supreme Court will even agree to hear the case because it does not appear to involve the type of issues the High Court usually chooses to decide," says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who says the Court tends to seek out cases involving major constitutional issues and areas where there is significant disagreement between different circuit courts. They accept only a small proportion of "cert" petitions they receive, Prof. Banzhaf notes.

It is even more unlikely that the Supreme Court would overturn the decision, says Banzhaf, because the evidence is so lengthy, detailed, and overwhelming, and the wrongfulness of their activities so obvious and blatant.

Jump to full article »

• Health Groups Ask Supreme Court to Authorize Financial Penalties on Tobacco Companies for Decades of Wrongdoing  

Six public health groups today asked the U. S. Supreme Court to authorize a trial court to require major cigarette manufacturers to pay for a broad public education campaign against smoking, as well as programs to help smokers quit. The groups also asked that the trial court be empowered to require the tobacco companies to forfeit profits they made during decades of illegal activity. . . .

However, Judge Kessler ruled that the penalties she could impose on the tobacco companies were limited by a controversial appeals court ruling that restricted the remedies she could impose under the civil RICO law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld Judge Kessler's ruling on May 22, 2009. The six public health groups are now asking the Supreme Court to overturn that part of the decision that restricted the penalties she could order.

The petition was filed by the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, the National African American Tobacco Prevention Network and the Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund (a 501(c)4 affiliate of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids). The groups are intervenors in the case making them formal parties to the lawsuit.

Jump to full article »

• UPDATE 2-Altria appeals tobacco ruling to US Supreme Court  

Altria Group Inc (MO.N) asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a racketeering verdict against major cigarette makers that was upheld by an appeals court last May.

In a petition to the high court, Altria's Philip Morris USA unit, the nation's biggest cigarette company, asked the court on Friday to overturn the decision on the grounds that the racketeering statute was improperly invoked and that the appeals court was overly deferential to the trial court.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the trial judge's verdict against the companies, finding they violated federal anti-racketeering laws by conspiring to lie about the dangers of smoking.

But in its petition to the Supreme Court, Philip Morris maintained that, because the case raised free speech issues, the appeals court was obliged to make an independent examination of the record "to make sure that the judgment does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression."

Jump to full article »

• Obama administration files appeal in tobacco case  

The Obama administration asked the Supreme Court on Friday to consider allowing the federal government to force tobacco companies to fund smoking cessation and public education programs, which could cost the industry billions of dollars.

Jump to full article »

• Facebook users asked to dob in tobacco firms  

Researchers have launched a Facebook site calling for people to dob in tobacco companies advertising their products online.

The site called Monitoring Tobacco Advertising, Promotion and Sponsorship 2.0 is a forum for people to report online cigarette advertising and is part of a University of Sydney research project.

Site founder Becky Freeman says tobacco companies are exploiting social media sites.

"The beauty of Facebook is the anonymity and the reach as well ... you can reach thousands and thousands of people for a very low cost," she said.

"If I were in the tobacco industry that's exactly where I'd want to advertise."

Jump to full article »