Table Bluff Reservation (Wiyot Tribe), et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al.
Several American Indian tribes brought an action against tobacco companies claiming that provisions of the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) entered into by the companies with state and territorial governments violated their rights. The tribes argued, among other things: (1) that the MSA's application outdoor tobacco advertisement regulations to tribal lands violated their tribal sovereignty; (2) that their exclusion from the MSA negotiations and the monetary benefits resulting from the MSA violated both equal protection and the right to make and enforce contracts; and (3) that increased prices for cigarettes resulting from the MSA violated due process. The Court held that the tribes lacked standing to bring their claims due to the failure of the tribes to declare or demonstrate any injury in fact caused by these allegations.
Table Bluff Reservation (Wiyot Tribe), et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., 256 F.3d 879, (9th Cir. 2001).
United States
Jul 16, 2001
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
The Confederated Tribes of Colville Consisting of the Chelan Tribe, The Entiats Tribe, The Lakes Tribe, The Methow Tribe, The Moses-Columbia Tribe, The Nespelem Tribe, The Nez Perce Tribe, The Okanogan Tribe, The Palouse Tribe, The San Poil Tribe, and The Wenatchee Tribe
The Delaware Tribe of Western Ohio
The Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council of New Mexico
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.
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 equal protection under the law, or another form of discrimination. The industry may claim that regulations discriminate against tobacco companies or tobacco products. Smokers may claim that addiction is a health condition, so regulations discriminate against them based on their health condition. Facilities subject to smoke free laws may claim that smoke free (SF) exceptions (e.g., hotel rooms, mental hospitals, etc.) unfairly discriminate against SF businesses because the law should apply to all locations equally.
A violation of the right to procedural fairness. For example, a party may claim that a government agency did not consult with public or stakeholders when issuing regulations.
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.
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.
"Standing was not in issue in Hise (the court granted summary judgment for the defendants). We agree with the court's reasoning, however, that no constitutional injury occurs when a manufacturer passes on higher costs in the form of price increases. See Forces Action Project LLC v. California, 2000 WL 20977 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2000) (price increases after execution of MSA are not sufficient to allege injury in fact for due process claim of plaintiffs, smokers' rights groups and individual smokers). The Tribes' complaint that their members must pay increased tobacco prices does not allege an injury in fact to the Tribes' due process rights."
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.
Several American Indian tribes brought an action against tobacco companies claiming that provisions of the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) entered into by the companies with state and territorial governments violated their rights. The tribes argued, among other things: (1) that the MSA's application outdoor tobacco advertisement regulations to tribal lands violated their tribal sovereignty; (2) that their exclusion from the MSA negotiations and the monetary benefits resulting from the MSA violated both equal protection and the right to make and enforce contracts; and (3) that increased prices for cigarettes resulting from the MSA violated due process. The Court held that the tribes lacked standing to bring their claims due to the failure of the tribes to declare or demonstrate any injury in fact caused by these allegations.