The legal issue in this case is whether the Town of Barrington, Rhode Island, has the authority to enact science-based public health laws to protect its residents – particularly its youth – from addiction to tobacco products and the toll of tobacco-related disease and death.

The legal issue in this case is whether the City of Philadelphia has the authority to implement a tax on soda and sugary drinks, levied on distributors of the products.

Cigar retailers, manufacturers, and trade association challenged the deeming rule under the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

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.

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 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.