Federal Cigarette Regulation Redux

Maybe my brain works like the majority of the Supreme Court cert pool, or maybe coincidences do happen. But who knew my recent post on how federal regulation of cigarette warnings hurt consumers would be so timely.

Reason reported yesterday:

The Supreme Court kicked off its fall term today with oral arguments in Altria Group v. Good, a case that stems from a lawsuit filed by a group of Maine smokers claiming that light cigarette advertisements and packages contained false and deceptive information.  Altria, the parent company of Phillip Morris, argued that since its marketing is consistent with federal cigarette labeling laws, the state suits have no business going forward.

The companies are simply shrugging their shoulders and explaining that their hands were tied. Of course they wanted to let everyone know of all the possible problems arising from the use of tobacco, but the federal government wouldn't let them.  And they're right.

This seems like an open and shut federal preemption case, so I'm unsure as to why SCOTUS took it up.  I'm too lazy to look up the procedural history but I would guess its because the Circuit Court was foolish enough to rule in favor of the former smokers.

Update:  The lazy spell passed and it turns out I was right.  The First Circuit tried to avoid the preemption problem and ruled in favor of the smokers:

The Circuit Court concluded that the lawsuit was based on claims of false statements about the two brands’ tar and nicotine content – that is, it was not based on health hazard claims that are regulated by federal law, but rather on the duty not to deceive consumers.—a duty imposed by state law. That disposed of the express preemption claim. The Circuit Court also said the FTC’s actions did not amount to a formal regulation of the use of tar and nicotine yields, rejecting the implied preemption claim. -- SCOTUS WIKI