R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. U.S. Food & Drug Administration
Five tobacco companies challenged the constitutionality of a Food and Drug Administration Final Rule requiring the display of a series of textual and graphical warnings that would occupy the front and back panels of the cigarette packaging. The Court found a substantial likelihood that plaintiffs would succeed on the merits, ruling that the mandatory graphical images were unconstitutionally compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. In so ruling, the Court pointed to the government's reliance on the emotional impact of the images for "salience" and the failure of the FDA's benefit analysis to prove efficacy in reducing the national rate of tobacco usage through implementation of the graphical warning labels. The Court also found that the government's assertions regarding the large number of children who experiment with tobacco and become regular smokers each day was insufficient to show a substantial harm caused by delaying enforcement of the Rule. As result, the Court granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al. v. FDA, et al., No. 11-01482 (D.D.C. 2011).
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
Measures to regulate the marketing on tobacco packages. This includes both bans on false, misleading, deceptive packaging, as well as required health warnings on packaging.
(See FCTC Art. 11)
A violation of the right to carry on trade, business, or profession of a person’s choice. This right may also be called the right to free enterprise or economic freedom. The industry may argue that a business should be able to conduct its business without government regulation, including whether or not to be smoke free.
A violation of the right to expression, free speech or similar right to express oneself without limitation or censorship. The industry may claim that a regulation infringes on their right to communicate with customers and the public. Similarly, they may claim that mandated warnings infringe on their freedom to communicate as they desire.
A discussion on whether current scientific evidence is sufficient to justify the regulatory measures.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"Unfortunately for the Government, the evidence here overwhelmingly suggests that the Rule's graphic-image requirements are not the type of purely factual and uncontroversial disclosures that are reviewable under this less stringent standard. Indeed, the fact alone that some of the graphic images here appear to be cartoons, and others appear to be digitally enhanced or manipulated, would seem to contravene the very definition of "purely factual." That the images were unquestionably designed to evoke emotion - or, at the very least, that their efficacy was measured by their "salience," which the FDA defines in large part as a viewer's emotional reaction, see Compl. ~ 58 (citing 76 Fed. Reg. at 36,638-36,639) - further undercuts the Government's argument that the images are purely factual and not controversial, see, e.g., Defs.' Opp'n at 22-29. Moreover, it is abundantly clear from viewing these images that the emotional response they were crafted to induce is calculated to provoke the viewer to quit, or never to start, smoking: an objective wholly apart from disseminating purely factual and uncontroversial information. 18 Thus, while the line between the constitutionally permissible dissemination of factual information and the impermissible expropriation of a company's advertising space for Government advocacy can be frustratingly blurry, 19 here - where these emotion-provoking images are coupled with text extolling consumers to call the phone number "I-800-QUIT" - the line seems quite clear."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
Five tobacco companies challenged the constitutionality of a Food and Drug Administration Final Rule requiring the display of a series of textual and graphical warnings that would occupy the front and back panels of the cigarette packaging. The Court found a substantial likelihood that plaintiffs would succeed on the merits, ruling that the mandatory graphical images were unconstitutionally compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. In so ruling, the Court pointed to the government's reliance on the emotional impact of the images for "salience" and the failure of the FDA's benefit analysis to prove efficacy in reducing the national rate of tobacco usage through implementation of the graphical warning labels. The Court also found that the government's assertions regarding the large number of children who experiment with tobacco and become regular smokers each day was insufficient to show a substantial harm caused by delaying enforcement of the Rule. As result, the Court granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction.