Briefs can also focus the court’s attention on the implications of a potential holding on an industry, group, or jurisdiction not represented by the parties.The court has discretion to grant or deny permission of parties to file briefs as amici curiae. For example, these briefs have supported local authority to enact smoke-free ordinances or to regulate tobacco distribution, and rules requiring restaurants to provide warnings on menus about sodium content.
Because this finding resolved the case, the court did not address the First Amendment questions raised by the tobacco companies.
New York City appealed the decision to the Second Circuit.
The court concluded that such interference with a display by the City was directly preempted by the FCLAA provision prohibiting states from imposing additional requirements with respect to tobacco companies’ promotional messages.
Whether New York City’s health regulation, Resolution § 181.19, requiring tobacco retailers to post factual health warnings where tobacco products are sold, is preempted by federal law, violates the free speech provisions of the federal and state constitutions, and exceeds the authority of the Board of Health under New York State Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine.
The brief was written by Professor David Vladeck, Georgetown University Law Center on behalf of the Tobacco Control Legal Consortium, and was joined by AARP and Public Justice. The Court upheld the rightof smokers to sue tobacco manufacturers for deceptive health claims, rejecting industry arguments that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act prevents consumers and state officials from suing manufacturers for fraudulent health claims. Supreme Court ruling, the tobacco companies continued to fight these claims. In 2015, San Francisco enacted an ordinance requiring that signs advertising sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) include a label, covering 20 percent of the sign, that reads “WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay.
This decision allowed other “light” cigarette fraud cases to be brought without risk of being preempted by federal law. Whether San Francisco's Ordinance requiring a warning label on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) violates the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This is a message from the City and County of San Francisco.” This was the nation’s first ordinance requiring such warnings.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Decided: December 29, 2010 Whether New York City’s health regulation, Resolution § 181.19, requiring tobacco retailers to post factual health warnings where tobacco products are sold, is preempted by federal law, violates the free speech provisions of the federal and state constitutions, and exceeds the authority of the Board of Health under New York State Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine.
On September 22, 2009, the New York City Board of Health amended Article 181 of the City’s Health Code to require that “[a]ny person in the business of selling tobacco products face-to-face to consumers in New York City shall prominently display tobacco health warnings and smoking cessation signage produced by the Department [of Health].” The City created signs displaying vivid images of diseased human lungs, brains and teeth, along with smoking cessation information, and required retailers to post these signs by cash registers to discourage consumers from purchasing cigarettes.
Our brief argues that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, which was amended in 2009 by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, does not preempt, or prohibit, the City from having such a requirement.