Synopsis

The tobacco industry challenged the FDA’s 2020 graphic warning label rule on First Amendment grounds.

Why It Matters for Public Health

This case, along with R.J. Reynolds v. FDA (2020), challenged the FDA’s new graphic warning rule that would require cigarette advertisements and packages to bear graphic warning labels. This case illustrates the ongoing efforts by the industry to fight graphic warning requirements in the U.S.

Background

The Tobacco Control Act requires the FDA to issue regulations mandating graphic warnings on cigarette packages and advertisements. In 2011, the FDA issued its first set of warnings, which were challenged by the industry and eventually struck down in court. After a lawsuit by public health groups, the FDA issued its new rule March 18, 2020.

Proceedings

On May 6, 2020, Philip Morris filed a complaint challenging the FDA’s updated graphic warning rule in the District Court for the District of Columbia (R.J. Reynolds filed earlier in the Eastern District of Texas).

Like the industry’s 2011 challenge to the previous iteration of the graphic warning rule, Philip Morris’ complaint alleged that the rule violates the First Amendment. The industry also alleged numerous violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and Tobacco Control Act. As a remedy, the industry requested both declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent implementation of the rule. The industry plaintiffs filed a combined motion for summary judgment and preliminary injunction on August 5, 2020.

On October 14, 2020, the Public Health Law Center filed an amicus brief in support of the government defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. The cross-motions for summary judgment were put on hold until further developments in the parallel R.J. Reynolds case.

Litigation Status (CLOSED)

On March 9, 2023, this case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice following the ruling in the parallel R.J. Reynolds case. Read about that case here.