Philip Morris v. Harshbarger

Nine manufacturers of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products challenged the constitutionality of a Massachusetts law requiring the companies to report on all ingredients added to their tobacco products. In particular, the tobacco manufacturers claimed that brand-by-brand reporting requirements and public disclosure of ingredients violated several Constitutional protections, including the Takings Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the Due Process Clause, without providing the assurances of confidentiality of trade secrets that existing federal legislation provided. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts restrained Massachusetts from enforcing the reporting requirements. In the present case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed that decision.


Philip Morris, Incorporated, et al. v. Harshbarger, et al., 159 F.3d 670, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit (1998).

  • United States
  • Nov 6, 1998
  • United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit



  • Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General of Massachusetts
  • Thomas A. Barnico, Assistant Attorney General
  • William W. Porter, Assistant Attorney General


  • Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation
  • Conwood Company
  • Lorillard Tobacco Company
  • National Tobacco Company
  • Philip Morris Incorporated
  • Pinkerton Tobacco Company
  • R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
  • Swisher International Incorporated
  • United States Tobacco Company

Legislation Cited

Massachusetts General Laws, Ch. 94, Section 307B

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product