TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS

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.

DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT

Table Bluff Reservation (Wiyot Tribe), et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., 256 F.3d 879, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2001).

  • United States
  • Jul 16, 2001
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Parties

Plaintiff

  • Ponca Tribe
  • Table Bluff Reservation (Wiyot Tribe)
  • The Apache Tribe of Oklahoma
  • The Comanche Tribe
  • 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
  • The Independent Hopi Village of Shungopavi
  • The Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma
  • The La Jolla Tribe

Defendant

  • American Tobacco Co., Inc.
  • B.A.T. Industries P.L.C.
  • Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
  • Lorillard Tobacco Co., Inc.
  • Philip Morris, Inc.
  • R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  • R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.

Legislation Cited

Master Settlement Agreement

Related Documents

None

Type of Litigation

Challenge to Government Policies Relating to Tobacco Control/Public Health
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.

Tobacco Control Topics

Price and Tax Measures
Tax or price measures, including tax- and duty-free regulation. (See FCTC Art. 6)
Education
Measures to promote and strengthen public awareness of tobacco control issues. (See FCTC Art. 12)
Advertising, Promotion and Sponsorship
Measures restricting any form of direct or indirect tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. (See FCTC Art. 13)

Substantive Issues

Right to Commerce
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.
Right to Equal Protection
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.
Right to Procedural Due Process
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.
Preemption
The subject matter of the case should be dealt with at a state level or national level.
Procedural Defect
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

1400 I Street N.W.,
Suite 1200,
Washington, DC 20005
United States of America

Phone: (202) 296-5469

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is a BBB-accredited charity and a
Guidestar Exchange Gold Participant.

© 2024 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids | Trademarks | Copyright | Privacy

Site created and maintained by