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
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.