US v Philip Morris
In this amicus brief, filed on behalf of Public Citizen, Inc., American college of Preventive Medicine, American Public Health Association, Association of Maternal and child Health Programs, National Association of Local Boards f Health, and the Oncology Nursing Society, we argued in support of the district court's finding that tobacco companies' use of descriptors such as "light" and "low-tar" was fraudulent and argued that the court's order that defendants cease using such descriptors did not conflict with Federal Trade Commission policy.
Aspinall v Philip Morris
In this amicus brief, Public Citizen, on behalf of itself, the Campaign for Toabcco-Free Kids, the Public Health Advocacy Institute, the American Lung Association, the American Lung Association of Massachusetts, and the American Cancer Society, argued that neither federal law nor the actions of the Federal Trade Commission immunize Philip Morris from liability for unfair and deceptive trade practices in connection with its marketing of "light" cigarettes.
Kelly v. Martin and Bailey
In this case, a district court in Illinois followed the 8th Circuit's decision in Watson v. Philip Morris and held that Philip Morris was entitled to remove cases brought against it in state court to federal court on the theory that it was acting under the direction of a federal officer in marketing light cigarettes. The Supreme Court is currently considering whether it should grant review of this issue in Watson and has asked the Solicitor General of the United States to file a brief with his recommendations. Meanwhile, the Illinois district court decision has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, and Public Citizen has filed a brief in support of the plaintiffs, who want the case remanded to state court.
Watson v. Philip Morris
In this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in an astonishing and unprecedented decision, held that cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris is entitled to "remove" cases filed against it in state courts to federal courts, under a statute designed to protect federal officers and employees. We filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing in the Eighth Circuit, which was denied with two judges dissenting. The plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court, and we filed another amicus brief supporting their petition. On May 22, the Supreme Court issued an order asking the United States to file a brief stating its position on whether the Supreme Court should review the Eighth Circuit's decision.
Lorillard v. Reilly
This case raised the fundamental question of whether states may regulate tobacco advertising strictly. Massachusetts had imposed a fairly broad regulation limiting outdoor tobacco advertising. The tobacco industry challenged the Massachusetts regulation on two grounds. First, industry claims that the federal cigarette labeling law "preempts" (or forbids) any state regulation. Industry's second argument was that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars states (and presumably the federal government as well) from imposing virtually any restraint on advertising. Our brief examined why the Court should reject both arguments. Unfortunately, the Court ruled in favor of industry.
Broin Flight Attendants Settlement
Public Citizen's Support of FDA Tobacco Regulations
Testimony of David C. Vladeck before the Senate Committee on the First Amendment Implications of Regulating the Advertising and Promotion of Tobacco Products to Children and Adolescents
Comments of Public Citizen, Inc. Regarding FDAs Proposal to Regulate the Sale and Promotion of Tobacco Products to Minors (Executive Summary) (1/1996)