Tobacco.org

High court could block 'light' cigarettes lawsuit 

"How do you tell it's deceptive or not if you don't look at what the relationship is between smoking and health?," Chief Justice John Roberts said during oral arguments on the case.

Three Maine residents sued Altria Group Inc. and its Philip Morris USA Inc. subsidiary under the state's law against unfair marketing practices. The class-action claim represents all smokers of Marlboro Lights or Cambridge Lights cigarettes, both made by Philip Morris.

The lawsuit argues that the company knew for decades that smokers of light cigarettes compensate for the lower levels of tar and nicotine by taking longer puffs and compensating in other ways.

Jump to full article »

Drama again on the Supreme Court docket  

Here is a guide on cases to watch in the upcoming term.

Most important legal issue you've never heard of It's called pre-emption and it has to do with whether a federal regulation can trump state law. It has its most crucial application in civil litigation. Companies being sued over allegedly defective or unsafe products often argue that because they met a less rigorous federal standard for product safety, they are immune from suit under state tort laws.

Two cases that address this principle

•The first, to be argued Monday, concerns lawsuits over so-called light cigarettes brought by smokers who say the cigarettes are no safer than ordinary cigarettes. The defendant, Altria Group, the parent company of Philip Morris, says it complied with Food and Drug Administration labeling requirements.

Jump to full article »

• Justices Question `Lights' Suits: U.S. Supreme Court Overview 

U.S. Supreme Court justices questioned whether smokers can sue over the marketing of ``light'' cigarettes as the court heard a case that may shield tobacco companies from lawsuits seeking billions of dollars.

In the first argument of the high court's 2008-09 term, the lawyer for a group of Maine smokers contended the state's consumer protection law lets them pursue a claim that Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA unit fraudulently advertised light cigarettes as safer. The company says federal cigarette labeling laws from the 1960s bar the lawsuit.

A Philip Morris victory would blunt perhaps the most significant legal hazard facing the tobacco industry. The Supreme Court's decision, later this year or next, could block as many as 40 similar lawsuits that seek billions of dollars from Philip Morris, Reynolds American Inc.'s R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and other cigarette makers.

``If I take away from your oral argument that it is your position that this suit is not based on a link between smoking and health, I'm going to have difficulty in accepting your position in this entire case,'' Justice Anthony Kennedy told the smokers' attorney, echoing skeptical questions from Justices David Souter and Antonin Scalia.

Jump to full article »

Fight over 'light cigarettes' begins in US Supreme Court 

Lawyers for the biggest US tobacco maker went before the Supreme Court on Monday to argue that Washington is to blame if anyone felt tricked into thinking that light cigarettes are less dangerous than regular smokes.

If the highest court in the United States rules against Altria -- whose Philip Morris unit is best known for Marlboro cigarettes -- tobacco manufacturers could find themselves being forced to pay out staggering legal settlements to ex-smokers.

Jump to full article »

Justices attend annual Red Mass 

Five members of the U.S. Supreme Court were among those who on Sunday attended the annual Red Mass, held the day before the nation's highest court begins its fall term.

Four of the five Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court - Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas - attended the Mass presided over by Cardinal John Patrick Foley, a Vatican official. . . .

The Red Mass in Washington is sponsored by the John Carroll Society. The chief justice's wife Jane Roberts is listed as a member of the group's board of governors.

Jump to full article »

Justices worship ahead of start of new term 

Justices worship ahead of start of new term List described as 'a little light on blockbuster cases' ASSOCIATED PRESS Monday, October 06, 2008

WASHINGTON — The law is a guide to an orderly society, an American cardinal said during a church service Sunday that was attended by five U.S. Supreme Court justices ahead of the start of their new term.

At the annual Red Mass, four of the five Roman Catholics on the high court — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas — came to worship at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle; the fifth, Justice Samuel Alito, did not attend. They were joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, who is Jewish.

Jump to full article »

U.S. Justice Breyer Sheds Stocks, Can Hear More Cases (Update1) 

Justice Stephen Breyer and his wife are selling many of their three dozen stocks, letting him take part in more business cases and reducing the conflict-of-interest issues that bedeviled the U.S. Supreme Court in its last term.

Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg confirmed Breyer's stock sales today after the justice participated in the court's rejection of several appeals that would previously have posed a conflict for him. Those decisions were part of a list of orders the high court released as it opened its 2008-09 term in Washington.

Breyer and his wife ``intend to continue to sell shares'' in order to ``minimize the number of instances in which financial conflicts require recusal'' from a case, Arberg said.

Jump to full article »

Cigarette suit first up in new court term Monday 

Several justices were skeptical that state laws against fraudulent advertising could be used to sue the makers of "light" and "low-tar" cigarettes when a federal law on cigarette labeling rules out lawsuits that involve smoking and health.

"How do you tell it's deceptive or not unless you look at smoking and health?," asked Chief Justice John Roberts.

Jump to full article »

At High Court, States' Authority in Question  

Of top concern to states - and to the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries - are a pair of cases testing whether federal law trumps state consumer-protection policies that let residents sue cigarette and drug makers over the way their goods are described.

The cases, one from Maine and the other from Vermont, could force changes in the way cigarettes and prescription drugs are marketed and labeled and could open up new avenues of litigation for consumers who feel they've been harmed by products.

The two cases "dwarf everything in terms of real effects," said Michael S. Greve, who studies the Supreme Court at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. . . .

Arguing that they have authority to protect their residents from potentially dangerous products, Maine and 46 other states side with the smokers in the dispute. The states say they "have a vital interest in preserving their power to regulate businesses to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive practices," according to a brief filed at the court. The federal government, notably, also sides with the smokers, while pro-business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce back Philip Morris.

Jump to full article »

Supremes Kick off Term with Prayer and Light Cigarettes 

Yesterday, before the first day of the Supreme Court’s fall term, four of the High Court’s five Roman Catholic justices — Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas — joined the Jewish Justice Breyer for the annual Red Mass at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle. This morning, the justices joined their colleagues for an argument over light cigarettes.

Jump to full article »

US high court seems closely divided on tobacco case  

The justices vigorously questioned lawyers for both sides and seemed closely divided, but the court's conservative majority appeared to support the firm's argument that Congress in adopting the law intended to trump or preempt such state court lawsuits.

The class-action tobacco lawsuit claimed the company engaged in unfair and deceptive acts or practices in its representations that certain brands of its cigarettes are "light" or have "lowered tar and nicotine."

It said cigarettes like Marlboro and Cambridge Lights are deceptively designed and marketed, and that a smoker of those brands consumes the same amounts of tar and nicotine as from regular cigarettes.

Theodore Olson, the administration's chief advocate before the Supreme Court during President George W. Bush's first term in office, argued on behalf of the tobacco company.

He said Congress decided it wanted one national source of regulation for advertising of cigarettes and health claims. "National advertising becomes impossible," if states can set different standards, Olson said.

Jump to full article »

Smokers' deception claims met with skepticism at Supreme Court  

The Supreme Court returned to the stage Monday as justices weighed whether state laws can be used to challenge deceptive cigarette advertising.

Against the backdrop of a presidential campaign, the high court opened its 2008-2009 term with a case crucial to business and consumer advocates alike. Multiple justices sounded skeptical about the efforts by three Maine smokers to challenge the parent company of Philip Morris under state law.

"I have difficulty in accepting your position in this entire case," Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy told the attorney for the smokers. . . .

The issue in Altria Group v. Good is preemption: whether a federal cigarette-labeling law blocks state lawsuits charging deceptive practices. The stakes are high, and not just for an industry that spends upwards of $15 billion annually on advertising. Big business, in general, prefers dealing with one uniform law instead of 50 different state laws.

"If you're going to conduct a national advertising campaign, you can't do it based on what a jury might decide in Des Moines compared to what a jury might decide in Atlanta," Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the court. . . .

"The Maine statute is not targeted at cigarette smoking," attorney David Frederick told the court. "It's targeted at deception."

Jump to full article »

The Maine statute is not targeted at cigarette smoking. It's targeted at deception.
Good attorney David Frederick, to SCOTUS.

If you're going to conduct a national advertising campaign, you can't do it based on what a jury might decide in Des Moines compared to what a jury might decide in Atlanta.
Altria attorney Theodore Olson, to SCOTUS.

UPDATE:US Supreme Court Appears Split In Altria Cigarettes Case 

The U.S. Supreme Court appeared split on whether consumers in Maine can sue Altria Group Inc.'s (MO) Philip Morris unit over the advertising of light and low-tar cigarettes, but a narrow majority may rule in favor of the tobacco giant.

At the first Supreme Court arguments session for the 2008-2009 term, Philip Morris argued to stop a lawsuit alleging it engaged in advertising fraud by claiming light and low-tar cigarettes weren't as harmful as regular cigarette products. The company's primary argument is that the Federal Trade Commission's regulation of tobacco product labeling, which has allowed light and low-tar claims to appear on labeling, bars lawsuits based on state advertising fraud laws.

Several conservative justices tied the case to earlier Supreme Court precedent that has preempted state-level cases when federal agencies are involved in oversight of an industry. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., for example, cited last year's 9-1 ruling in Riegel v. Medtronic Inc. (MDT), which barred a state lawsuit on medical devices because of federal device regulations.

Several liberal justices, meanwhile, suggested they think the tobacco advertising law at issue may not bar lawsuits over light cigarettes.

Washington-based attorney David Frederick, representing the plaintiffs, argued federal statutes trump state laws on a case-by-case basis. He added that the FTC's oversight of tobacco labeling dates to a 1960s law and Congress "gave no intention whatsoever to immunize cigarette makers" when it passed the provision.

Jump to full article »

Appeal from the Judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia  

The expectation was that by now, after years of controversy, the Defendants would have changed and started to demonstrate a level of responsibility that is commensurate with the lethality of their products.

1

But Judge Gladys Kessler tells us that the Defendants have not changed; that their pattern of purveying disinformation and denial to the public continues. United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006). In 816 pages of findings of fact, Judge Kessler meticulously documents the Defendants’ racketeering activities. Id. at 35-851. Over 136 pages alone, for example, describe the Defendants’ current youth tracking and marketing activities. Id. at 556-692.

Several key remedies proposed by the Plaintiff and Intervenors at trial must be implemented if this case is to end the Defendants’ racketeering conduct. . . .

To illustrate the forward-looking nature of the two remedies, this brief shows how these remedies would work to prevent and restrain racketeering conduct by the Defendants that has occurred since the conclusion of the liability phase of the trial.

Jump to full article »

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF PUBLIC CITIZEN, INC., AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION,  

Jump to full article »