Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday by a California smoker who alleged the multibillion dollar tobacco settlement between 46 states and the four major cigarette companies was anticompetitive and violated antitrust laws.
Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Brown & Williamson and Lorillard Inc. agreed in November 1998 to pay the states more than $200 billion over 25 years as part of the settlement.
In June 2004, Steve Sanders sued the four companies and the state of California, arguing that the terms of the agreement effectively penalized tobacco companies if they gained market share. Tobacco companies would have to make larger payments to the states if they cut prices and increased their sales relative to rivals, Sanders said in court filings.
Jump to full article »
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday by a California smoker who alleged the $206 billion tobacco settlement between 46 states and the four major cigarette companies violated antitrust laws.
As a part of the multi-state settlement, Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Brown & Williamson and Lorillard Inc. agreed in November 1998 to pay the states to settle claims by the states for smoking related costs they incur.
Without comment, the nation's high court declined to hear the case that Steve Sanders brought originally in June 2004, when he sued the four tobacco companies and the state of California.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ended a California class-action lawsuit brought by smokers alleging a nationwide tobacco settlement violated federal antitrust laws and allowed tobacco companies to uniformly raise cigarette prices.
The lawsuit was filed against California and all the major U.S. tobacco manufacturers in 2004. . . .
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal without comment. . . .
The case is Sanders v. Brown, 07-995.
The U.S. Supreme Court refused on Monday to consider a lawsuit that alleged tobacco companies turned minors into smokers by targeting them with cigarette advertising. The California Supreme Court ruled against the smokers last August, saying a federal law on cigarette advertising and the companies' First Amendment rights to commercial speech
allowed the marketing campaigns. At issue is whether the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act pre-empts California law. The federal law confirms the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to regulate unfair or deceptive practices in cigarette advertising.
The headquarters of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, located across from Lafayette Park in Washington, is a limestone structure that looks almost as majestic as the Supreme Court. . . .
The chamber's litigation center filed briefs in 15 cases and its side won in 13 of them -- the highest percentage of victories in the center's 30-year history. The current term, which ends this summer, has also been shaping up nicely for business interests.
I visited the chamber recently to talk with Robin Conrad, who heads the litigation effort, about her recent triumphs. . . .
But Olson's claim that federal regulation of medical devices and drugs should also pre-empt product-liability suits under state tort law is one of the more creative and far-reaching legal arguments of the business groups that litigate before the Supreme Court.
This type of argument arose out of the tobacco litigation of the 1980s and '90s, which culminated in a $206 billion settlement paid by the top tobacco companies to a consortium of 46 state attorneys general in exchange for dropping tort suits against the companies. The tobacco litigation began modestly: in 1983, Rose Cipollone, a New Jersey woman dying of lung cancer, sued several of the country's largest tobacco companies for their failure to give adequate warnings about the dangers of smoking. After spending tens of millions of dollars fighting the verdict, the companies decided to take their defense to the next level. They argued that because the federal government required cigarette companies to have warning labels, tobacco companies couldn't be subject to tort suits in state courts. Jury verdicts, they argued, are no less a form of regulation than laws explicitly adopted by state legislatures.
In a decision in 1992, the Supreme Court endorsed part of the companies' argument. . . .
At the same time that the White House was scaling back on federal health-and-safety enforcement, it insisted that consumers should not be able to sue federally regulated industries in state court. Bush appointed as the general counsel of the Food and Drug Administration a former drug- and tobacco-company lawyer named Daniel Troy. With Troy’s support, the F.D.A. reversed its position, held for 25 years, and argued for the first time that its premarket approval of medical devices should prevent injured consumers from bringing product-liability suits in state court.
The U.S. Supreme Court cited the Tobacco Control Legal Consortium’s amicus curiae brief in a recent Internet tobacco law case. The Legal Consortium, headquartered at William Mitchell’s Tobacco Law Center, is a national network providing legal expertise to support tobacco control policy change.
On Feb. 20, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned a Maine law that regulates deliveries of tobacco products . . .
The Tobacco Control Legal Consortium’s brief, drafted by Kathleen Dachille, director of the Legal Consortium’s Maryland affiliate, argued that Maine’s tobacco delivery law, which regulates the sale and delivery of tobacco products over the Internet, is a legitimate exercise of the state’s public health police powers and a necessary response to Congress’s call to reduce youth access to tobacco.
In a concurring opinion urging Congress to remedy the regulatory gap the Supreme Court decision creates, Justice Ruth Ginsburg quoted from the Tobacco Control Legal Consortium’s amicus brief: “As cyberspace acts as a risk-free zone where minors can anonymously purchase tobacco, unrestricted online tobacco sales create a major barrier to comprehensive youth tobacco control.” Justice Ginsberg concluded with another quote from the brief: “The same sort of age verification safeguards (must be) used when tobacco is handed over-the-doorstep as …when it is handed over-the-counter.”
The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to get involved in a West Virginia tobacco case.
Altria Group Inc., the parent company of cigarette maker Philip Morris, wanted the court to declare unconstitutional a multi-phase trial plan developed by West Virginia Circuit Court Judge Arthur Recht.
"This tells me to go ahead and try the case as planned," Recht said.
The trial plan still won't be put to use until at least October, when the Supreme Court is expected to rule on another related tobacco lawsuit, Recht said.
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a tobacco industry request to intervene in a lawsuit by over a thousand West Virginia smokers.
The justices declined to examine a trial procedure in which a jury first determines whether smokers as a group are entitled to punitive damages before establishing whether any single smoker is entitled to compensation.
Later, a new jury addresses issues unique to each alleged smoking victim who sued.
West Virginia courts are allowing the approach, which has been used in other types of lawsuits, including claims for asbestos exposure.
The second phases of such trials rarely occur, because the two sides usually settle once they know the value of the case.
Tobacco companies oppose use of the legal device, which lawyers call "reverse bifurcation."
The tobacco industry lost a U.S. Supreme Court bid aimed at limiting damage awards in more than 700 West Virginia lawsuits filed by smokers who say cigarettes gave them cancer and other diseases.
The justices, without comment, today left intact a trial plan that Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA unit and other cigarette makers said will lead to unconstitutional awards of punitive damages. The approach calls for a jury to consider common issues, including the availability of punitive damages, before separate trials are held on individual cases.
``Defense counsel will be wholly unable to defend against plaintiffs' amorphous claim for punitive damages,'' the cigarette makers argued in their unsuccessful appeal
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to intervene in West Virginia legal proceedings involving more than 1,000 individual lawsuits against the tobacco industry.
The four major U.S. tobacco companies have opposed the way West Virginia courts have consolidated the individual suits into one large multi-phased trial proceeding. The appeal, rejected by the high court without comment, sought Supreme Court intervention before the March 18 start date of the trial's first phase. . . .
they believe the legal proceedings violate Supreme Court precedent, including recent punitive damages decisions . . .
"If the more than 1,000 individual cases involved in this action were treated in the traditional course of litigation, the West Virginia court system would need to devote at least 180 judge years to these trials," the attorneys said in a legal brief. "Many, if not most, of the plaintiffs would die before their individual case was tried, thus affording the defendants a free pass." . . .
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has been critical of West Virginia's court system, filed a brief faulting the proceedings. "The reverse bifurcation procedure devised by the trial court contravenes this court's decisions aimed at ensuring that even unpopular defendants receive due process," the Chamber said. (Philip Morris USA v. Accord)
Blumenthal - who has repeatedly urged such federal regulation - said he will redouble his efforts to seek federal regulation of Internet-based tobacco sales.
"This crippling blow to state anti-tobacco efforts means that federal action is now absolutely vital to fight Internet cigarette sales to children," Blumenthal said. "Today's Supreme Court decision severely undermines Connecticut's efforts to fill the gap left by federal inaction. The Internet is the perfect underground means for Big Tobacco to illegally peddle cigarettes to minors, which now the federal government must fight.
"I will aggressively fight for federal prohibition of Internet-based tobacco sales. Once again, the federal government should act or get out of our state's way to protect public health and safety."
Attorney General Steve Rowe issued the following statement:
“Today’s decision is disappointing because it strikes down a law that prevents Maine children from buying cigarettes over the internet. Restricting access to tobacco products is one of the tools Maine has used to dramatically reduce youth smoking. Today’s decision has taken one of the State’s tools away and created a regulatory gap that will allow children to purchase cigarettes.
“The Maine law simply sought to ensure that children face the same barriers whether they try to purchase tobacco over the internet or in a brick and mortar store.
“In her concurring opinion, Justice Ginsberg referred to Maine’s law as a ‘sensible enforcement strategy’. . . .
“Today’s decision is a loud and clear signal to Congress and the President to take immediate action to protect children from internet tobacco sales.”
The Supreme Court delivered three opinions yesterday that set aside state laws, underscoring the dominant role of Congress in regulating commerce among states.
The rulings involved three different states and dealt with unrelated issues: product liability in New York for a faulty medical device, Maine's attempt to keep cigarettes from minors and a California law aimed at protecting star-struck Hollywood hopefuls from unscrupulous talent agents. In each case and by votes unanimous -- or nearly so -- the justices made clear that federal power is to be read broadly, with state authority surviving only when Congress explicitly permits it a role.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday curtailed lawsuits against the makers of medical devices and struck down a state effort to keep youths from buying cigarettes on the Internet, in two disputes testing the line between state and federal power. . . .
Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the decision, said that under the U.S. law, the FDA spends about 1,200 hours reviewing each application and considering the device's safety and effectiveness. He said the law bars any additional state product-liability requirements.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.
In the Maine case, the state in 2003 passed rules for carriers who deliver tobacco packages. State officials were concerned about minors buying cigarettes over the Internet.
After the New Hampshire Motor Transport Association and other carrier groups sued, lower courts ruled that a federal transportation law pre-empted Maine's rules. Backed by 36 states in its appeal, Maine said federal law does not block state efforts to protect public health.
Writing for the court, Justice Stephen Breyer said no such tobacco or public health exception exists. He said the federal law was intended to standardize delivery rules and stressed the importance of an efficient, competitive system.