Lorillard v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001)
Case Facts
This case was filed in court in the year 1999. The parties involved in the filing of the suit were four cigarette manufacturer companies namely the Lorillard Tobacco Company, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, Philip Morris Incorporated and R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; a single producer of smokeless tobacco products namely U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company; finally there were other several cigar producers and sellers. The main reason behind the aforementioned parties bringing forward the case to court was because of the veto instituted on tobacco sales and advertisements by the state of Massachusetts. The ban stipulated that advertisements or sale of Tobacco commodities inside the 1,000 feet perimeter of any educational institution or playing field to be declared illegal. The Lorillard Tobacco Company contested that the imposition of such a law to tobacco companies was in itself an encroachment on their First Amendment rights. They further opined that the regulation impose enforced through the act of the State of Massachusetts was additionally broad than needed.
This law came about to be in 1999, when the Attorney General (A.G) of Massachusetts publicized broad policies overriding the sales and advertising of all tobacco products namely; cigars, smokeless tobaccos and cigarettes. This resulted to the tobacco firms filing a suit in the District Court alleging the fact that the policies imposed by the A.G infringed both the Constitution and the federal regulations of the country. The reason behind the Attorney General promulgating such laws was the creation of substantive consumer protection regulations, settlement agreement, which would restrict and curb sales and advertising of tobacco products. He further opined that such regulation would extinguish all possible loop holes with regard to the advertising and selling practices of tobacco companies which would end up recruiting underage customers in the state of Massachusetts.
Questions in the Court
Pursuant to the promulgation of the consumer protection regulations the Attorney General went further and promulgated regulations responsible for the governing of sales and advertisement of cigars, cigarettes and smoke-less tobacco. This regulation was geared towards the elimination of deception in the way the tobacco products are marketed. The tobacco companies used advertisement and sales strategies which were prone to exposure to under age tobacco users (Franklin et al, 53). These regulations were broader. It had more far reaching effects of restrictions on al fresco advertisements and the trade of tobacco commodities. The affiliates of the tobacco firms managed to sue the A.G before date of regulation took effect. The court in coming up with its ruling it had to take a couple of things under consideration. First and foremost, the court verified whether there are certain cigarettes advertising rules that were forestalled by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA).
The court was of the opinion that the A.G’s al fresco and point-of-sale advertising rule aimed at tobacco manufacturers was pre-empted by the FCLAA. If the FCLAA is followed to the letter then the pre-emption policy would only be applicable to cigarettes (Hudson, 54). Due to this fact the court had to conduct an evaluation on smokeless tobacco and cigar petitioner’s First Amendment challenges to the state of Massachusetts al fresco and point-of-sale advertising rule. However, it was noted that the petitioners did not challenge the earlier sales practices regulations. This forced the court to have a conclusive analysis of the cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and cigars petitioner’s claim of violation on the First Amendment by the sales practices regulation.
The court distinguished that commercial speech lies within the domain of the First Amendment. Due to the aforementioned fact the court gave the commercial speech a certain degree of First Amendment fortification in relation to other expressions provided for under the U.S. Constitution. The court constructed a framework to distinguish commercial speech made under areas of government rule and other arrays of speech. The framework was capable of providing an analysis of regulation of commercial speech in terms of the place, manner of restriction and time. The framework analysis comprised of four vital elements which the court applied in coming up with the ruling. First and foremost, the court had to conduct a determination of the expression that is safeguarded by the First Amendment. Secondly, it had to determine the assertion of the potential governmental interest, if the regulation openly presses on the asserted government interests. The final element was whether or not the regulation is more broad than necessary. This analysis is what is simply referred to as The Central Hudson Analysis (The United States Patent Quarterly, 37).
Court’s Decision and Rationale
The petitioners in this case contested for the Central Hudson analysis to be discarded and instead for the court to apply the strict scrutiny analysis. The court in its decision stated that in this case only two of the Central Hudson’s four part analysis was applicable. On the first step the court recognized that the Attorney General assumed that the petitioner’s speech lied under the domain of First Amendment protection. On the other step, the petitioners omitted to challenge the possible interest of the State in the act of prevention of use of tobacco commodities by the legally underage. The third step in the analysis is concerned if whether or not the regulation (speech restriction) presses on the government’ interests. The burden is to prove that a governmental body seeks to uphold a restriction on commercial speech that has the potential of harming people rather than meager assumptions. The fourth step merely goes together with the third step since it determines if the prohibitions placed on commercial speech by governmental bodies are broader than the level needed to provide for the concern of the of the government body.
Standards Used
The court stated that in setting the standards of the regulation policies they shall employ means which are intently customized to attain the preferred purpose instead of the “least restrictive means”. In dealing with the problem of controversy on al fresco and point-of sale advertising regulations for cigars and smoke-less tobacco, the court had its focal point on the third and fourth consecutive steps of the analysis. They went further and also addressed the issue on sales practices regulation for all tobacco products. The al fresco advertising regulation for cigars and smokeless tobacco which banned the display of advertisements of such commodities within 1,000 foot perimeter of an education facility school or a recreational facility. The Federal District Court and the Court of Appeal both ruled in favor of the Attorney General (Allison et al, 10).
The Courts stated that the A.G had managed to spot a genuine crisis related with the juvenile utilization of tobacco commodities. This regulation would curb the exposure of such tobacco advertisements to the innocent youths. The courts also stated that the regulation only burdened the commercial speech related to the accomplishment of the State’s goal and no any other array of speech. The cigar and smokeless tobacco petitioners challenged this statement claiming that the Attorney General’s regulation was not in compliance with Central Hudson’s third step. They contend that though the Attorney General managed to spot a genuine crisis of underage cigarette use, he did not equally identify a likewise severe predicament with reverence to underage use of cigars and smokeless tobacco. Furthermore the Attorney General gave the impression of not being aware of the impact the 1,000 foot ban on commercial speech would have on metropolitan areas (Hudson, 5).
This considerable physical reach of the A.G’s al fresco advertising rule is amalgamated by other vital factors. Al fresco or outdoor advertising as stipulated by the regulation incorporates both advertisements situated outside a business establishment and also those inside the business establishment but are visible outside the store. With accordance to the regulation, the prohibited advertisements are of all sizes and shall include any statements made by word of mouth. The court opined that no matter the rational potency of the A.G’s dispute to validate the rule concerning outdoor advertising, the final step of the analysis process had not been satisfied.
The effect of this ban was that in some geographical areas it would amount to a total prohibition and blackout of information about tobacco products to adult users. The petitioners argued that the regulation did not display a vigilant control of speech interests concerned. Additionally, the array of communications prohibited by the regulation appeared to be more or less disproportionately broad. This was due to the reason that regulatory scheme did not specify the reason behind the ban on oral communication that proves to be necessary for the State’s concern. The Court of Appeal in countering the petitioner’s agreement stated the prohibition was valid since there was a substantial degree of correlation between the State’s concern and safeguarding of the minor’s interests.
Case Worthiness in Studying
The case between Lorillard v. Reilly shows a rigorous battle between the Massachusetts Attorney General and tobacco manufacturers. The case emerged after the tobacco manufacturers challenged the attorney general’s regulation on restricted of sale, the promotion as well as labeling tobacco products. Based on the battle between plaintiffs and dependant in three court sessions – District Court and Court of Appeal – it is notable that this case is worth studying because it highlights how different situations influence the application and implementation of the law. The implementation and control of legal matters especially between the states power and that of the congress through FCLAA in this court is the main concern in the three-court session. Major concerns by the tobacco manufactures in that the restrictions put across by the Attorney General are pre-empted by the FCLAA and thus they are restricting the freedom of speech.
In their reasoning, the District Court and Court of Appeal gave some differences and similarities on law applications and interpretations. The court of appeal and district court failed to agree on freedom of speech with regard to Attorney General’s argument on smokeless cigarettes and cigars. Although, the district court argued that the attorney general’s restriction on smokeless cigarettes and cigars products did not restrict the freedom of speech, the Court of Appeal agreed with petitioners that this move curtailed the freedom of speech. However, the two courts agreed that the attorneys’ move was reasonable because the regulation of not placing an outdoor advertisement within 1,000 feet next to school or a playground is not a violation of the First Amendment since it promotes the interest of the government.
Again, affirmed the Attorney General’s move of putting in place the regulations on contrary to petitioners’ challenge that FCLAA pre-empts any state regulation on cigarette advertising. In the courts’ arguments, although FLCAA pre-empts localities and states from imposing ant special requirements or some prohibitions on smoking and health promotions and advertisements, the states still have substantial power to impose ant general applicable regulating conduct and zoning regulations. Finally, the case is worth studying because it eliminates some ambiguities; that is, the FCLAA does not anyway foreclose any most of state conduct regulations on the use and sale of cigarettes and therefore this case gives a limelight on such as the Attorney General’s role. Thus, the application and interpretation of law as exemplified by this case in reference to freedom of speech will be construed differently depending on the circumstances surrounding the case.
Works Cited
Allison, John R, and Robert A. Prentice. Business Law. Mason, Ohio: Thomson Custom Pub, § 12.1 (2006)
Franklin, Marc A, David A. Anderson, and Lyrissa B. Lidsky. Mass Media Law: Cases and Materials. New York, N.Y: Foundation Press, § 5.4 (2005)
Hudson, David L. The Handy Supreme Court Answer Book. Canton, MI: Visible Ink Press, (2008).
The United States Patents Quarterly. Washington: Associated Industry Publications (1929).
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]