Tobacco.org

SUPREME COURT ROUNDUP: Justices Permit Immigrants to Challenge Deportations 

Chief Justice Rehnquist announced that the court would meet again on Thursday and would conclude its term then by announcing its remaining decisions. Four cases remain: another immigration case, a property rights case, a challenge to restrictions on tobacco advertising, and a case on a habeas corpus issue. . .

The court ruled 6 to 3 that a federal law that requires mushroom growers to pay assessments for a federal advertising program violated the growers' First Amendment rights against compelled speech. . .

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Breyer said this analysis created an incentive to increase government regulation. He said it called into question the constitutionality of a government program to require tobacco companies to help pay for advertising that warned of the dangers of smoking. Justices Ginsburg and O'Connor also dissented in United States v. United Foods, No. 00-276, which upheld a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati. [This graph only]

Jump to full article »

Tobacco, golf on High Court docket 

Here are 10 key cases remaining to be decided:

Tobacco ads. Do cigarette makers have a free-speech right to advertise their product, or does the state have the authority to forbid cigarette ads near schools and parks to protect children? The tobacco industry is challenging a broad ban on ads in Massachusetts that regulates not just billboards but also ads outside convenience stores (Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly).

Jump to full article »

Massachusetts tobacco restrictions being challenged 

"We're trying to limit the amount of advertising that kids see," said Thomas Houston, MD, director of the AMA's science and community health advocacy programs. "Think about the local 7-11 or corner market where children go to buy their soda and their bubble gum. The outside of these buildings shouldn't be plastered with tobacco advertising."

The AMA -- along with organizations such as the American Heart Assn., American Lung Assn., American Cancer Society, Center for Science in the Public Interest and Massachusetts Medical Society -- have filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the Massachusetts regulation.

"The restriction of intrusive forms of tobacco advertising serves values so profoundly important that this court should accord them great respect when considering the reach of the First Amendment and federal preemption," says the summary of the brief's argument. "When young children are constantly and involuntarily bombarded with seductive messages appearing on neighborhood storefronts that promote a lifelong addiction, not only is their health endangered, but their right to be free from having adult choices foisted upon them is not so subtly infringed."

Jump to full article »

U.S. Supreme Court Struggles With Mass. Tobacco Ad Curbs 

The U.S. Supreme Court seemed torn Wednesday as it weighed the fate of a Massachusetts effort to keep storefront cigarette advertisements out of the view of youngsters.

Tobacco companies attacked the 1999 regulations on two fronts, arguing during an hour of arguments that the curbs violated both federal law and First Amendment speech protections. . .

But perhaps cigarettes are different, posing a significant health risk for youngsters because of their "highly addictive" qualities, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested.

"We're dealing with a commodity like no other," she said. "Can't you make a distinction with respect to the danger of the product?" . .

Massachusetts was also backed by the Bush administration. Acting Solicitor General Barbara D. Underwood, arguing in favor of the restrictions, said the state's interest in curbing underage smoking was "truly compelling."

Jump to full article »

• Tobacco Ad Fight Moves Indoors With U.S. Supreme Court Battle 

The signs touting Parliament Lights and Virginia Slims are among the first things a visitor sees upon entering the Father & Son Market in Brighton, Massachusetts, just down the street from the local high school.

Those cigarette signs, and thousands like them across the state, are under fire from state officials. New Massachusetts regulations would bar tobacco ads within 1,000 feet of a school or playground and are either visible from the street or set at children's eye level.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear arguments from Philip Morris Cos., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc. and other tobacco companies seeking to invalidate the rules. Advertisers and convenience stores have joined the fight, hoping for a decision that will stem efforts around the country to put new limits on tobacco promotions.

``If they uphold the rules, it's going to embolden cities and states around the country to pursue all kinds of advertising restrictions,'' said Richard Kaplar, vice president of the communications industry-sponsored Media Institute, which opposes most ad limits. . .

A decision is due by June. . .

The companies say the 1965 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act bars state advertising restrictions beyond the warning labels and broadcast ban required under the federal law. The law says that no requirements ``based on smoking and health shall be imposed under state law with respect to the advertising or promotion'' of properly labeled cigarettes. . .

Tobacco companies also cite the constitutional guarantee of free expression, asking the high court to extend a series of recent rulings enhancing commercial speech rights.

``Some people are seeing this as an ideal vehicle for the court to substantially strengthen protections for commercial speech,'' said David L. Hudson Jr., an attorney with the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University.

Jump to full article »

Tobacco industry asserts free-speech infringement 

A dispute pitting Massachusetts against the tobacco industry could give the U.S. Supreme Court the chance to decide if commercial advertising deserves First Amendment protections similar to political and artistic speech.

At issue are regulations that would severely curtail tobacco advertising inside and outside stores near schools. Attorney General Thomas Reilly said the regulations are needed to keep tobacco companies from pitching cigarettes to children.

The industry argues it has already agreed to tough advertising regulations, including banning outdoor billboards, as part of a national settlement with the states. Companies say the regulations are overkill and that advertising should be protected by the First Amendment. . .

Massachusetts' regulations are effectively a ban, said Mark Berlind, a lawyer for Philip Morris Inc., one of five tobacco manufacturers that challenged the regulations, which have yet to take effect. The industry filed the lawsuit in 1999.

"What's at stake here is whether manufacturers of adult products are allowed to advertise to adult consumers in any meaningful way," he said.

Jump to full article »

Tobacco Regulation: FDA vs. Brown & Williamson [Item undated] 

U.S. Supreme Court Case #: 98-1152
Argument date: December 1, 1999.
Decision date: March 21, 2000.
BACKGROUND:

In response to petitions from anti-smoking advocates, the Food and Drug Administration began to analyze, in the mid-1990’s, whether it could issue rules regulating tobacco products. The agency’s general regulatory authority comes from the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which allows regulation of “drugs” and “devices” to protect public health. Under the act, drugs are defined as articles “intended to affect the structure or any function of the body.”

Jump to full article »

Lawyer Seeks U.S. Supreme Court View On Starr Ethics 

A city lawyer who has been rebuffed by the federal courts in his bid for an ethics investigation of former independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr has taken his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. . .

In seeking court intervention, Mandanici also claims: Starr represented tobacco companies while investigating a presidency that fought to curtail the industry . . .

Mandanici is now petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Appellate Court decision. The court, which reviews about 1 of 500 petitions, will announce Tuesday whether it will consider Mandanici's case. [This graph only]

Jump to full article »

Justices Limit Disability Law 

The Supreme Court limited the reach of the Americans With Disabilities Act, ruling Wednesday that state workers cannot file employment-discrimination lawsuits against their employers under the federal disability-rights law.

The 5-4 ruling, a further cutback of the federal government's power over the states, said Congress exceeded its authority when it let state workers file claims seeking monetary damages under the 1990 law. . .

``We decide here whether employees of the state of Alabama may recover money damages by reason of the state's failure to comply with the (employment discrimination) provisions of Title 1 of the Americans With Disabilities Act. We hold that such suits are barred by the 11th Amendment,'' Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court. . .

Joining Rehnquist were Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Dissenting were Justices John Paul Stevens David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Writing for the four, Breyer said, ``The court ... improperly invades a power that the Constitution assigns to Congress.'' . .

Ash, a security guard for the Alabama Department of Youth Services, said his severe asthma was aggravated by the agency's refusal to enforce its no-smoking policy or repair exhaust problems on a vehicle he had to drive. . .

The case is University of Alabama v. Garrett, 99-1240.

Jump to full article »

Supreme Court to Review Mass. Tobacco Ad Laws 

The cases could have significant implications for businesses as the justices ponder just how far authorities can go when regulating so-called commercial speech—in this case, truthful ads for legal products.

"The court has repeatedly recognized that commercial speech—while standing somewhat lower in the First Amendment pantheon than does political speech—is still entitled to substantial constitutional protection," the pro-business Washington Legal Foundation argued in a brief backing the companies' appeal.

Jump to full article »

Supreme Court Allows Smoking Lawsuit to Proceed 

The U.S. Supreme Court allowed on Monday a Northwest Airlines Corp. flight attendant to proceed with a class-action lawsuit against the company claiming harm from exposure to secondhand smoke on flights to Asia.

The lawsuit seeks ``tens of millions'' of dollars for up to 4,000 flight attendants forced to breathe tobacco smoke on long flights for years after the airline banned smoking on domestic flights and in its corporate offices. . .

A federal judge in Washington state had dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the 1978 Airline Deregulation Act preempts lawsuits under state laws relating to airlines' ``rates, routes, or service.''

But a U.S. appeals court in April reinstated the lawsuit. It said permitting smoking does not fall under ``service,'' and that allowing smoking and offering in-flight beverages would better be described as ``amenities.''

Jump to full article »

Court Mulls Reach of Federal ADA 

Waxman said the law could hold up even though it was enacted before the justices' recent rulings that have tipped the balance of power toward the states.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy cautioned, ``When Congress alters the federal balance, it must consider carefully the consequences of doing so.'' . .

Former President Bush, who signed the ADA into law, was among many people and groups offering advice to the justices. In a brief supporting Garrett and Ash, Bush said the ADA let disabled people ``pass through once-closed doors into a bright new era of equality, independence and freedom.''

Jump to full article »

• Generic Nicotine Gum Allowed 

The Supreme Court refused to block the marketing of a generic chewing gum to help smokers give up cigarettes, rejecting an appeal in which the maker of Nicorette gum said the marketing violated its copyright.

The justices, acting without comment on Monday, let stand rulings that let Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc. sell the generic gum over the objections of Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare, which has made and sold Nicorette gum since 1984.

At issue was how federal Food and Drug Administration regulations affect Smithkline's labeling copyrights. Lower courts said the copyright could not be enforced against a company required by the FDA to mimic Nicorette' s labeling. . .

Over-the-counter sales of the gum were approved in 1996 after exhaustive negotiations over the product's labeling -- a term that extends beyond packaging to include a user' s guide and an audiotape.

Smithkline' s exclusive right to market the over-the-counter version of Nicorette gum expired in 1999. . .

Watson won FDA approval in 1999 and began marketing its generic gum, sparking a copyright-infringement lawsuit by Smithkline.

Jump to full article »

• Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Americans with Disabilities Act 

Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law and the National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems released the following:

On Wednesday, October 11, 2000, the United States Supreme Court will hear a case that could overturn the federal ban on discrimination against people with disabilities in access to public services such as education, health and mental health care. The case, University of Alabama v. Garrett, challenges the constitutionality of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The case began as two lawsuits, combined by the trial court. Patricia Garrett, 54, was director of women's services at the state university's medical center in Birmingham when she was treated for breast cancer. After being demoted and then transferred, apparently because her supervisor didn't like ``sick people,'' Garrett sued the hospital. Milton Ash, 56, a corrections officer with asthma, sued the state youth corrections agency for its failure to enforce the agency's no-smoking rule and to service the cars he had to drive so they wouldn't emit noxious fumes. . .

In both suits, the state argued that Congress does not have the power to enact legislation requiring states to pay money damages. The trial court accepted Alabama's argument, but last year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision, finding that the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to pass such a law in order to enforce the guarantee of equal protection and due process of law.

Jump to full article »

High Court Lets Stand Tobacco Ad Bans 

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected challenges by mainly advertising groups to bans in New York City and Chicago on most outdoor and certain indoor tobacco advertising.

Jump to full article »