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 20^th 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 legal issue in this case is whether the district court erred in holding that three of the world’s foremost authorities on nicotine addiction should be disqualified altogether from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee because of purported conflicts of interest and that the FDA should be barred from using a March 2011 report on menthol cigarettes issued by this committee.

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.

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.

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.

The legal issue in this case is whether the Circuit Court erred (1) in denying Appellant’s motion for a preliminary injunction based on a finding that Appellant had only demonstrated that secondhand smoke, a known carcinogen, was an “offensive odor” and therefore not a nuisance; (2) in requiring “medical evidence demonstrating an unfavorable health condition” or “materially diminished property value” before determining the secondhand smoke to be a nuisance warranting the granting of a preliminary injunction; and (3) in applying the deferential “business judgment rule” in the context of a residential common interest community as opposed to the “reasonableness” standard.

The legal issue in this case is whether various provisions in the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act violate tobacco companies’ First Amendment rights to free speech and due process in their marketing efforts, and constitute an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment.