U.S. Supreme Court upholds California’s flavored cigarette ban
OAN’s Elizabeth Volberding
3:25 PM – Monday, January 8, 2024
The United States Supreme Court has rejected R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company’s challenge to a standard in California that banned flavored tobacco products in the state.
The Supreme Court’s decision means that California’s flavored tobacco ban will remain intact.
R.J. Reynolds, a subsidiary of British American Tobacco (BAT), and other plaintiffs had appealed a lower court’s ruling, arguing that California’s law contradicted a federal statute governing tobacco products.
These tobacco companies claimed that the Tobacco Control Act (TCA) did not grant states the authority to outlaw flavored cigarettes. In December 2022, California’s ban on flavored tobacco products went into effect, with 62% of state voters supporting its passage.
“Under the TCA, states have broad authority to regulate the sale of tobacco products. They can raise the minimum purchase age, restrict sales to particular times and locations, and enforce licensing regimes. But one thing they cannot do is completely prohibit the sale of those products for failing to meet the state’s preferred tobacco product standards,” the companies wrote in a request for the case to be taken up by the Supreme Court. “That is because the TCA’s preemption clause specifically denies states and localities the power to enact ‘any requirement which is different from, or in addition to,’ federal ‘tobacco product standards.”
The tobacco companies argued that the Supreme Court should have taken up the case because the ban “shut the doors to one of the Nation’s largest markets for flavored tobacco products and thereby banned a product (menthol cigarettes) that has been lawfully sold for nearly a century,” and could result in significant economic losses and job cuts.
California urged the Supreme Court not to take up the case, with Attorney General Rob Bonta (D-Calif.) stating that states should have the authority to regulate tobacco products and citing previous court rulings in support of his position.
“This Court long ago recognized the broad authority of the States to regulate in that way. In upholding a Tennessee law that categorically banned the sale of cigarettes, the Court concluded that it is ‘within the province of the legislature to say how far [cigarettes] may be sold, or to prohibit their sale entirely,’” Bonta wrote in court papers.
“In the 14 years since the TCA was enacted … no court has agreed with the tobacco industry position that the Act preempts restrictions or prohibitions on the sale of flavored tobacco products,” he added.
Bonta, who has previously defended the law in court, hailed the Supreme Court’s decision as “excellent news.”
“EXCELLENT NEWS: The Supreme Court has declined to review Big Tobacco’s challenge to California’s flavored tobacco ban,” Bonta wrote on X. “Californians overwhelmingly approved our state’s flavored tobacco ban and my office has been proud to defend it in court. We look forward to continuing to fight to prevent addiction and protect the health of our people.”
Previously, R.J. Reynolds had unsuccessfully requested the Supreme Court to halt the implementation of the California law while it pursued its appeals. The justices denied that request in December 2022.
Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts
Authorities arrest a suspect for the deadly shooting at a mall in Florida just two days before Christmas.
In just eight days Iowa residents will gather together at the precinct level for the first in the nation caucus events.
A precinct captain for President Trump in Iowa lays out the strategy for the campaign to build momentum.
In an exclusive interview Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton tells One America News why the group has filed a $30 million dollar wrongful death lawsuit against the government over the shooting of Ashli Babbitt on January 6th, 2021.
OpenAI and its financial backer Microsoft were sued in Manhattan federal court by a pair of nonfiction authors who say the companies misused their work to train the AI models behind AI-based services.
SpaceX sued a U.S. labor board to block its case accusing the company of illegally firing employees calling CEO Elon Musk “a distraction and embarrassment.”
ChatGPT was well on its way to becoming a household name even before 2023 kicked off.
Apple fell nearly 3% to a seven-week low after Barclays downgraded the shares on concerns demand for its devices will remain weak in 2024.
rnrn
What was the outcome of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company’s challenge to California’s ban on flavored tobacco products?
The United States Supreme Court Upholds California’s Ban on Flavored Tobacco Products”
On Monday, January 8, 2024, the United States Supreme Court made a significant decision regarding flavored tobacco products in California. The Court rejected R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company’s challenge to a standard in California that banned flavored tobacco products in the state. This means that California’s ban on flavored tobacco products will remain intact.
R.J. Reynolds, a subsidiary of British American Tobacco (BAT), along with other plaintiffs, had appealed a lower court’s ruling, arguing that California’s law contradicted a federal statute governing tobacco products. They claimed that the Tobacco Control Act (TCA) did not grant states the authority to outlaw flavored cigarettes. However, California’s ban on flavored tobacco products went into effect in December 2022, with 62% of state voters supporting its passage.
In a request for the case to be taken up by the Supreme Court, the tobacco companies argued, “Under the TCA, states have broad authority to regulate the sale of tobacco products. They can raise the minimum purchase age, restrict sales to particular times and locations, and enforce licensing regimes. But one thing they cannot do is completely prohibit the sale of those products for failing to meet the state’s preferred tobacco product standards. That is because the TCA’s preemption clause specifically denies states and localities the power to enact ‘any requirement which is different from, or in addition to,’ federal ‘tobacco product standards.'”
The tobacco companies also argued that the Supreme Court should have taken up the case because the ban would shut the doors to one of the nation’s largest markets for flavored tobacco products, potentially resulting in significant economic losses and job cuts.
However, California urged the Supreme Court not to take up the case, with Attorney General Rob Bonta (D-Calif.) stating that states should have the authority to regulate tobacco products in support of his position. He cited previous court rulings that recognized the broad authority of states to regulate tobacco products.
Attorney General Rob Bonta expressed his satisfaction with the Supreme Court’s decision, calling it “excellent news.” He wrote, “Californians overwhelmingly approved our state’s flavored tobacco ban, and my office has been proud to defend it in court. We look forward to continuing to fight to prevent addiction and protect the health of our people.”
Previously, R.J. Reynolds had requested the Supreme Court to halt the implementation of the California law while pursuing its appeals. However, the justices denied that request in December 2022.
This decision by the Supreme Court reaffirms the state’s authority to regulate tobacco products and prioritize public health over industry interests. It sets an important precedent for other states considering similar bans on flavored tobacco products. With this ruling, California can continue its efforts to reduce tobacco-related harm and protect its citizens.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...