 |
|
Amicus Brief for 11 Public Health Groups Supports Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
Earlier this year, Congress enacted the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act to give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco products and to impose certain restrictions on advertising and promotion of tobacco products. On August 31, a group of tobacco companies filed suit to challenge the law, arguing primarily that it imposes restrictions in violation of the First Amendment. The companies have moved for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the provision that requires FDA approval before a company can make claims that a tobacco product poses a reduced risk as compared to other tobacco products.
On behalf of 11 non-profit public health organizations and consumer advocacy groups that for decades have worked to educate the public about and protect the public from the devastating health and economic consequences of tobacco use, we filed an amicus curiae memorandum in support of the constitutionality of that provision. Our memorandum explains that the provision is fully consistent with FDA regulation of other products, such as drugs and foods. In addition, the tobacco industry's documented history of deceit with respect to "light" and "low-tar" cigarettes — which they falsely marketed as healthier than other cigarettes — justifies a pre-approval scheme to protect the public health.
On November 5th, the judge issued a decision denying the companies' motion. Briefing on the rest of the companies' challenges to the new law will be filed later this year.
Supreme Court Hears Landmark Campaign Finance Case
On September 9th, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Although the case came to the Court on a narrow issue about whether an anti-Hillary Clinton movie made in the heat of the last presidential election is covered by restrictions in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, the justices are using the case to reconsider two other prior court decisions that limited the role of corporate money in politics.
Overturning the courts precedents on corporate election expenditures would be a disaster. Corporations already dominate our political process - through political action committees, fundraisers, high-paid lobbyists and personal contributions by corporate insiders, and more. On the dominant issues of the day - climate change, health care and financial regulation -- corporate interests are leveraging their political investments to sidetrack vital measures to protect the planet, expand health care coverage while controlling costs and prevent future financial meltdowns.
Public Citizen Litigation Group attorney Scott Nelson is co-counsel for the key congressional sponsors of the McCain-Feingold law. Read their amicus brief at http://www.citizen.org/hot_issues/issue.cfm?ID=2333.
New Director At The Litigation Group
On July 1, 2009, Allison Zieve became the new director of Public Citizen Litigation Group. Allison joined the Litigation Group as a staff attorney in 1994, after practicing in California for several years. Her practice at the Litigation Group focuses on health and safety matters, federal preemption, open government, class action fairness, due process issues, and the first amendment. She has argued four cases before the United States Supreme Court, has spoken and published articles on topics withn her areas of expertise, and taught as an adjunct professor of law. She is also now the director of our Supreme Court Assistance Project.
Allison replaces Brian Wolfman, who had been with the group for nineteen years, five of them as its director. Brian has moved on to the faculty of Georgetown University Law Center, where he will be co-director of the Institute for Public Representation clinic, a position recently vacated by David Vladeck, the new head of the FTCA's Bureau of Consumer Protection and himself the Litigation Group's director for many years.
Public Citizen Litigation Group is the litigating arm of Public Citizen. The Group specializes in cases involving health and safety regulation, consumer rights, access to the courts, open government, and the First Amendment, including Internet free speech.
We litigate cases at all levels of the federal and state judiciaries and have a substantial practice before federal regulatory agencies. Our efforts are also pursued through programs such as the Alan Morrison Supreme Court Assistance Project and the Freedom of Information Clearinghouse.
|
|
|
