First Amendment topicsAbout the First Amendment
News Story
 
Court blocks landmark ruling against tobacco industry

By The Associated Press
11.01.06

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court blocked a landmark judgment against the tobacco industry yesterday, allowing the companies to continue selling “light” and “low tar” cigarettes until their appeals can be reviewed.

The decision by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia also allows the companies to continue for now the advertising campaigns that a federal judge in August ruled were misleading.

Without comment, the appeals court granted the tobacco companies’ request to put Judge Gladys Kessler’s order on hold. The companies have argued that her far-reaching ruling could cost them millions of dollars and lead to a loss of customers.

In mid-August, Kessler ruled that the companies had violated racketeering laws and conspired for decades to mislead the public about the health hazards of smoking.

The judge ordered the companies to publish in newspapers and on their Web sites “corrective statements” on the adverse health effects and addictiveness of smoking and nicotine.

She also ordered tobacco companies to stop labeling cigarettes as “low tar,” “light,” “ultra light” or “mild,” since such cigarettes have been found to be no safer than others because of how people smoke them.

Kessler’s ruling was appealed by Philip Morris USA, Lorillard Inc., Brown & Williamson Corp. and British American Tobacco PLC.

“The company believes the trial court’s decision is contrary to the law and facts presented during trial, and looks forward to the opportunity to present its arguments to the appellate court.,” said William S. Ohlemeyer, vice president and associate general counsel for Altria Group Inc., the parent company of Philip Morris.

William V. Corr, executive director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said the appeals court stay was not surprising.

“Judge Kessler’s finding was that these companies have lied to the American people for 50 years,” Corr said. “We’re confident that, if it means going all the way to the Supreme Court, the government’s case will be vindicated and the industry will be held accountable.”

The Justice Department declined comment.

The three-judge appeals court panel was divided 2-1 on whether to block the order, with Republican-appointed Judges David B. Sentelle and A. Raymond Randolph in the majority and Democratic appointee Judge David S. Tatel in dissent.


Related

Tobacco industry bristles at Justice Department's proposed rules

Philip Morris official says some of the restrictions would place unconstitutional limits on free speech. 03.13.02

Calif. high court: Smokers can't sue over cigarette ads
Tobacco users in class-action lawsuit had claimed they took up habit as minors because of companies' marketing. 08.03.07

High court steps into legal fray over 'light' cigarettes
Justices agree to decide if tobacco companies can be sued in state court over alleged deceptive ads. 01.22.08

Justices turn down smokers' lawsuit
High court denies cert on case in which California Supreme Court agreed with tobacco companies that federal law, First Amendment allowed their marketing campaigns. 03.18.08

Justices allow lawsuits over 'light' cigarettes
In 5-4 split, high court rules smokers may use state consumer-protection laws to sue cigarette tobacco industry for way it promotes 'light' and 'low tar' brands. 12.15.08

Tobacco ads

News summary page
View the latest news stories throughout the First Amendment Center Online.

print this   Print


Last system update: Saturday, January 24, 2009 | 20:02:32
 SEARCH  MORE
About this site
About the First Amendment
About the First Amendment Center
Video/RSS/podcasts
First Amendment programs
State of the First Amendment
reports

First Reports
Supreme Court
Experts
Columnists
First Amendment publications
First Amendment Center history
Glossary
Freedom Sings™
Events
First Amendment
Schools

Congressional Research Service reports
Guest editorials
FOI material
The First Amendment
Library

Lesson plans
freedomforum.org
Newseum
Contact us
Privacy statement
Related links