The legal issue in this case is whether the government has substantial latitude, and is entitled to deferential review, in regulating false and misleading commercial and professional speech within an industry, and in protecting the public from deceptive marketing and the purveying of misinformation by service providers.
The legal issue in this case is whether San Francisco's ordinance requiring a health warning on advertisements of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) violates the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
A cigar manufacturer challenged the FDA’s deeming rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as well as the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
The legal issue in this case is whether a preliminary injunction against Genesee County’s Tobacco 21 Regulation would deprive county residents, particularly young people, of the demonstrable public health benefits of prohibiting the sale of tobacco products to persons under 21 years of age.
The legal issue in this case is whether Executive Order 13771 threatens to block, weaken, or delay critical public health protections in contravention of congressional intent, jeopardizing progress in public health seen since Congress established the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in the early 20th century.
The legal issue in this case is whether the Panel’s preemption analysis accurately interpreted Congressional intent when it omitted consideration of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act’s preservation and savings clauses, leading to the conclusion that any state regulation banning sales of tobacco product is subject to implied preemption.
The legal issue in this case is whether state credit card no-surcharge laws unconstitutionally restrict speech conveying price information (as the Eleventh Circuit has held), or regulate economic conduct (as the Second and Fifth Circuits have held).
The legal issue in this case is whether New York City’s sodium warning rule is a scientifically controversial, arbitrary and capricious, constitutionally invalid measure preempted by federal law, or whether the sodium warning is a scientifically sound, legally well-grounded measure representing a reasonable response to a public health crisis.
The tobacco industry successfully challenged an FDA guidance document that changed the way that the agency administers the premarket review process.
Lorillard Inc. and R.J. Reynolds challenged the composition of the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC). The court determined that the challenge to TPSAC’s report on menthol was not ripe for judicial review.
The legal issue in this case is whether the court should grant en banc review of National Association of Manufacturers, et al. v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, given the panel’s novel holdings that, if broadly adopted, would have a significant impact on the robust mandatory disclosure regimes required in public health and safety.
Chicago ordinance prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco products, including menthol, within 500 feet of a school is upheld.
The legal issue in this case is whether several major tobacco companies violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by engaging in a conspiracy to defraud the public about the health risks of smoking and to market tobacco products to children.
The legal issue in this case is what standard of First Amendment review applies to compelled disclosures of factual information that the government requires for reasons other than consumer deception.
The World Trade Organization determines flavored cigarette prohibition is inconsistent with WTO Trade Agreement.
NYC ordinance prohibiting the use of coupons and discounts for tobacco products is upheld.
The legal issue in this case is whether Bullitt County Board of Health has the authority to promulgate a countywide smoke-free policy that regulates indoor smoking in public buildings, workplaces and other specified public areas.
The legal issue in this case is whether the Free Speech Clause of the California Constitution extends so far into the ordinary business of government as to forbid regulation of basic economic activity whenever that activity happens to involve language or information, including the enactment of a statute that requires the gathering and mailing of unadorned statistical data.
The legal issue in this case is whether Defendant Lorillard was denied a fair trial; the trial court erred in denying Lorillard’s post-trial motions; and the award of compensatory and punitive damage was fair.
Providence’s law prohibiting the redemption of coupons and the sale of flavored tobacco products is upheld.