En Fuego Tobacco Shop LLC, et al. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2018)
Cigar retailers, manufacturers, and trade association challenged the deeming rule under the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Litigation is an important tool to defend and advance public health policy. This tracker provides information and official court documents from select lawsuits within the focus areas of the Public Health Law Center, including commercial tobacco control and healthy eating. Some cases are relevant to cross-cutting issues that affect public health, such as preemption and First Amendment considerations. The Public Health Law Center has supported public health goals as an amicus curiae, or friend-of-the-court, by filing briefs (included here) with relevant information that the court may choose to consider. You can read more about the Function and Role of Amicus Briefs in Public Health Litigation.
State of New York, City of New York v. United Parcel Service (U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit) (2018)
The legal issue in this case is whether the District Court’s civil penalty against UPS for illegally transporting hundreds of thousands of cartons of untaxed cigarettes from Indian reservation retailers to non-tribal members in the State of New York is constitutional, well within the court’s discretion, and consistent with the harm to public health caused by UPS’s violations.
National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Xavier Becerra (U.S. No. 16-1140) (2018)
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.
American Beverage Association, et al. v. The City and County of San Francisco (2016)
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.
Sanchez Icaza et al. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration et al. (2016)
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.
RPF Oil Co. v. Genesee Cty. and Genesee Cty. Health Dep’t, Genesee Cty. Circuit Ct., Case No. 17-109107-CZ (2017)
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.
Public Citizen, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. District Ct. for D.C., Civil Action No. 17-253 (2017)
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.
Earl E. Graham v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the 11th Circuit) (2016)
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.
Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, U.S. No. 15-1391 (2016)
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).
National Restaurant Association v. NYC Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, et al. (2016)
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.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. U.S. Food & Drug Administration (2015)
The tobacco industry successfully challenged an FDA guidance document that changed the way that the agency administers the premarket review process.
Lorillard Inc. et al. v. U.S. Food & Drug Administration (2011)
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.
National Association of Manufacturers, et al., v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (2015)
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.
Independents Gas & Service Stations Associations, Inc. v. City of Chicago/5827, Inc. v. City of Chicago (2015)
Chicago ordinance prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco products, including menthol, within 500 feet of a school is upheld.
United States (and Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund) v. Philip Morris, 556 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2009)
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.
American Meat Institute v. United States Department of Agriculture (U.S. District Ct., D.C. 2014)
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.
United States – Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes World Trade Organization, Dispute Settlement DS406
The World Trade Organization determines flavored cigarette prohibition is inconsistent with WTO Trade Agreement.
National Association of Tobacco Outlets, Inc., et al., v. City of New York (U.S. District Ct., So. District of N.Y. 2014)
NYC ordinance prohibiting the use of coupons and discounts for tobacco products is upheld.
Bullitt County Fiscal Court et al. v. Bullitt County Board of Health (No. 2011-CA-001798-MR)
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.
Jerry Beeman and Pharmacy Services vs. Anthem Prescription Management (2013)
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.