Supreme Court Rules in Cigarette Pre-emption Case

Christopher Nace
Attorney
(866) 735-1102 Ext 660
Visit Christopher Nace on LinkedIn
Posted by Christopher NaceDecember 16, 2008 6:00 AM

The Supreme Court issued a surprise ruling on Monday in Altria Group v. Good, refusing to exempt the cigarette maker from a state lawsuit on the grounds of pre-emption.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority in Altria Group v. Good, rejected Altria’s assertion that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act pre-empts state tort actions. The ruling runs against the Court’s recent trend in favor of federal pre-emption in cases involving tort litigation against businesses.

Pre-emption has been a major issue before the Court in recent years. Pre-emption is the legal theory that when a federal agency sets minimum requirements for a product or safety standard, state law is "pre-empted" and someone--or some business--adhering to that standard cannot be held responsible for injuring another under state law. In other words, if you follow the federal minimum, it doesn't matter how negligent your actions may otherwise be.

In Riegel v. Medtronic the Court held that if a medical device is approved by the FDA after undergoing the FDA's "rigorous" pre-market approval process, an individual cannot maintain a product liability action against the manufacturer. The problem is, there is nothing "rigorous" about the pre-market approval process. In fact, as many have learned with the Vioxx situation, the FDA simply does not have the resources to make any type of meaningful evaluation of products or drugs.

Pre-emption has been asserted by corporations to escape wrongdoing that they would otherwise be held responsible for.

But in this case, the Court did not give the cigarette company a free pass:

Ruling against Altria Group Inc’s Philip Morris USA (PM) unit, the court ruled for a group of Maine smokers who sued under a state law to stop PM from advertising its light cigarettes. The high court held that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act does not bar or preempt these state court lawsuits.

Pre-emption will still be a major issue this term. The Court is expected to issue its opinion in Wyeth v. Levine, a case that addresses pre-emption as it relates to pharmaceutical products. With the Court's ruling in the cigarette case, consumers are now 1-1 when it comes to maintaining the right to bring suit in a state court. All eyes remain focused on the Court as its opinion in Wyeth is due.

0 Comments

Have an opinion about this post? Please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Comments for this article are closed.

Subscribe to InjuryBoard Washington

InjuryBoard Washington RSS Feeds

Keep up with the latest updates using your favorite RSS reader

Injury Board Washington is brought to you by Paulson & Nace

Legal Assistance Center

More Info
Paulson & Nace (866) 735-1102 Ext 660 www.paulsonandnace.com
google
Personal Injury Lawyers Serving: Serving Washington, DC and all surrounding areas including Montgomery County, Maryland; Prince George's County, Maryland; Anne Arundel County, Maryland; Berkeley County, West Virginia; Jefferson County, West Virginia; and Northern Virginia.
1615 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Washington, District of Columbia 20009-2520 [ Show Map ]
Better Business Bureau Accredited Business Confidential

Your question will be referred to an attorney near you. If your question is of a legal nature, then by submitting this form you agree you are not forming a formal attorney / client relationship. Read our full privacy policy.

Looking for an InjuryBoard attorney closer to home? Click here.

Subscribe to Blog Updates

Enter your email address if you would like to receive email notifications when comments are made on this post.

Email address