altria
group
et
al
good
et
argued
october
decided
december
respondents
smokers
petitioners
light
cigarettes
filed
suit
alleging
petitioners
violated
maine
unfair
trade
practices
act
mutpa
fraudulently
advertising
light
cigarettes
delivered
less
tar
nicotine
regular
brands
district
granted
summary
judgment
petitioners
finding
claim
federal
cigarette
labeling
advertising
act
labeling
act
first
circuit
reversed
holding
labeling
act
neither
expressly
impliedly
respondents
fraud
claim
held
neither
labeling
act
provision
federal
trade
commission
actions
field
respondents
fraud
claim
pp
congress
may
indicate
intent
statute
express
language
structure
purpose
see
jones
rath
packing
text
express
clause
susceptible
one
plausible
reading
courts
ordinarily
accept
reading
disfavors
bates
dow
agrosciences
llc
labeling
act
stated
purposes
inform
public
health
risks
smoking
protecting
commerce
economy
ill
effects
nonuniform
requirements
extent
consistent
first
goal
although
fidelity
purposes
demand
state
fraud
rules
principal
question
whether
result
nevertheless
required
provides
requirement
prohibition
based
smoking
health
shall
imposed
state
law
respect
advertising
promotion
cigarettes
packages
labeled
conformity
provisions
chapter
pp
respondents
claim
expressly
determined
cipollone
liggett
group
lorillard
tobacco
reilly
phrase
based
smoking
health
modifies
rule
issue
rather
particular
application
rule
cipollone
plurality
concluded
phrase
smoking
health
fairly
narrowly
construed
cipollone
plaintiff
claim
cigarette
manufacturers
fraudulently
misrepresented
concealed
material
fact
claim
alleged
violation
duty
deceive
duty
based
smoking
health
respondents
also
allege
violation
duty
deceive
codified
mutpa
like
duty
cipollone
nothing
smoking
health
respondents
claim
analogous
warning
neutralization
claim
found
cipollone
reilly
consistent
cipollone
analysis
disagrees
petitioners
alternative
argument
express
framework
cipollone
reilly
rejected
american
airlines
wolens
riegel
medtronic
distinguished
pp
various
federal
trade
commission
decisions
respect
statements
tar
nicotine
content
impliedly
state
deceptive
practices
rules
like
mutpa
pp
affirmed
remanded
stevens
delivered
opinion
kennedy
souter
ginsburg
breyer
joined
thomas
filed
dissenting
opinion
roberts
scalia
alito
joined
altria
group
et
petitioners
stephanie
good
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
first
circuit
december
justice
stevens
delivered
opinion
respondents
years
smoked
light
cigarettes
manufactured
petitioners
philip
morris
usa
parent
company
altria
group
claim
petitioners
violated
maine
unfair
trade
practices
act
mutpa
specifically
allege
petitioners
advertising
fraudulently
conveyed
message
light
cigarettes
deliver
less
tar
nicotine
consumers
regular
brands
despite
petitioners
knowledge
message
untrue
petitioners
deny
charge
asserting
advertisements
factually
accurate
merits
dispute
us
district
entered
summary
judgment
favor
petitioners
ground
respondents
claim
federal
cigarette
labeling
advertising
act
amended
labeling
act
appeals
reversed
judgment
granted
certiorari
review
holding
labeling
act
neither
expressly
impliedly
respondents
fraud
claim
affirm
respondents
maine
residents
longtime
smokers
marlboro
lights
cambridge
lights
cigarettes
manufactured
petitioners
invoking
diversity
jurisdiction
federal
district
respondents
filed
complaint
alleging
petitioners
deliberately
deceived
true
harmful
nature
light
cigarettes
violation
mutpa
rev
stat
tit
supp
respondents
claim
petitioners
fraudulently
marketed
cigarettes
light
containing
owered
ar
convey
consumers
deliver
less
tar
nicotine
therefore
less
harmful
regular
cigarettes
app
respondents
acknowledge
testing
pursuant
cambridge
filter
indicates
tar
nicotine
yields
marlboro
lights
cambridge
lights
lower
regular
cigarettes
respondents
allege
however
petitioners
known
relevant
times
human
smokers
unconsciously
engage
compensatory
behaviors
registered
cambridge
filter
method
testing
negate
effect
features
light
cigarettes
covering
filter
ventilation
holes
lips
fingers
taking
larger
frequent
puffs
holding
smoke
lungs
longer
period
time
smokers
light
cigarettes
unknowingly
inhale
much
tar
nicotine
smokers
regular
cigarettes
ibid
light
cigarettes
fact
harmful
increased
ventilation
results
unique
design
features
produces
smoke
mutagenic
per
milligram
tar
smoke
regular
cigarettes
respondents
claim
petitioners
violated
mutpa
fraudulently
concealing
information
affirmatively
representing
use
light
lowered
tar
nicotine
descriptors
cigarettes
pose
fewer
health
risks
petitioners
moved
summary
judgment
ground
labeling
act
expressly
respondents
cause
action
relying
decisions
cipollone
liggett
group
lorillard
tobacco
reilly
district
concluded
respondents
mutpa
claim
recast
respondents
claim
warning
neutralization
claim
kind
cipollone
claim
charges
petitioners
produc
ing
product
knew
contained
hidden
risks
apparent
known
consumer
claim
runs
petitioners
actually
said
lights
respondents
claim
said
supp
difference
petitioners
said
respondents
say
concern
cigarette
smoking
health
quoting
reilly
district
thus
concluded
respondents
claim
rests
requirement
based
smoking
health
precisely
kind
granted
summary
judgment
petitioners
respondents
appealed
appeals
reversed
appeals
first
rejected
district
characterization
respondents
claim
warning
neutralization
claim
akin
claim
cipollone
instead
concluded
respondents
claim
substance
fraud
claim
alleges
petitioners
falsely
represented
cigarettes
light
lowered
tar
nicotine
even
though
deliver
smokers
quantities
components
regular
cigarettes
fact
alleged
misrepresentations
unaccompanied
additional
statements
nature
warning
transform
claimed
fraud
failure
warn
warning
neutralization
finding
respondents
claim
indistinguishable
fraud
claim
issue
cipollone
appeals
held
expressly
also
rejected
petitioners
argument
respondents
claim
impliedly
success
claim
stand
obstacle
purported
policy
ftc
allowing
use
descriptive
terms
convey
cambridge
filter
method
test
results
accordingly
reversed
judgment
district
concluding
respondents
claim
expressly
appeals
considered
rejected
fifth
circuit
reasoning
similar
case
unlike
fifth
circuit
likened
plaintiffs
challenge
use
light
descriptors
cipollone
warning
neutralization
claim
thus
found
expressly
brown
brown
williamson
tobacco
granted
petition
certiorari
resolve
apparent
conflict
ii
article
vi
cl
constitution
provides
laws
shall
law
land
thing
constitution
laws
state
contrary
notwithstanding
consistent
command
long
recognized
state
laws
conflict
federal
law
without
effect
maryland
louisiana
inquiry
scope
statute
effect
guided
rule
purpose
congress
ultimate
touchstone
every
case
medtronic
lohr
quoting
retail
clerks
schermerhorn
congress
may
indicate
intent
statute
express
language
structure
purpose
see
jones
rath
packing
federal
law
contains
express
clause
immediately
end
inquiry
question
substance
scope
congress
displacement
state
law
still
remains
intent
may
also
inferred
scope
statute
indicates
congress
intended
federal
law
occupy
legislative
field
actual
conflict
state
federal
law
freightliner
myrick
addressing
questions
express
implied
begin
analysis
assumption
historic
police
powers
superseded
federal
act
unless
clear
manifest
purpose
congress
rice
santa
fe
elevator
assumption
applies
particular
force
congress
legislated
field
traditionally
occupied
lohr
see
also
reilly
law
said
bar
state
action
fiel
traditional
state
regulation
namely
advertising
assumption
historic
police
powers
superseded
federal
act
unless
clear
manifest
purpose
citation
omitted
thus
text
clause
susceptible
one
plausible
reading
courts
ordinarily
accept
reading
disfavors
bates
dow
agrosciences
llc
congress
enacted
labeling
act
response
surgeon
general
determination
cigarette
smoking
harmful
health
act
required
every
package
cigarettes
sold
contain
conspicuous
warning
positive
enactments
added
federally
prescribed
warning
stat
congress
amended
labeling
act
years
later
enacting
public
health
cigarette
smoking
act
amendments
strengthened
language
prescribed
warning
stat
prohibited
cigarette
advertising
medium
electronic
communication
subject
fcc
jurisdiction
also
broadened
labeling
act
provision
see
cipollone
plurality
opinion
discussing
difference
scope
clauses
acts
labeling
act
since
amended
require
cigarette
manufacturers
include
four
explicit
warnings
packaging
advertisements
rotating
stated
purpose
labeling
act
establish
comprehensive
federal
program
deal
cigarette
labeling
advertising
respect
relationship
smoking
health
whereby
public
may
adequately
informed
cigarette
smoking
may
hazardous
health
inclusion
warning
effect
package
cigarettes
commerce
national
economy
may
protected
maximum
extent
consistent
declared
policy
impeded
diverse
nonuniform
confusing
cigarette
labeling
advertising
regulations
respect
relationship
smoking
health
stat
requirement
cigarette
manufacturers
include
packaging
advertising
precise
warnings
mandated
congress
furthers
act
first
purpose
act
provisions
promote
second
purpose
amended
labeling
act
contains
two
express
provisions
section
protects
cigarette
manufacturers
inconsistent
state
labeling
laws
prohibiting
requirement
additional
statements
relating
smoking
health
cigarette
packages
section
issue
case
provides
requirement
prohibition
based
smoking
health
shall
imposed
state
law
respect
advertising
promotion
cigarettes
packages
labeled
conformity
provisions
chapter
together
labeling
requirement
provisions
express
congress
determination
prescribed
federal
warnings
necessary
sufficient
achieve
purpose
informing
public
health
consequences
smoking
congress
decided
additional
warning
statement
needed
attain
goal
may
impede
commerce
cigarettes
enforcing
rules
based
assumption
federal
warnings
inadequate
although
act
purposes
furthered
prohibiting
supplementing
federally
prescribed
warning
neither
served
limiting
authority
prohibit
deceptive
statements
cigarette
advertising
petitioners
acknowledge
congress
intention
insulating
tobacco
companies
liability
inaccurate
statements
relationship
smoking
health
brief
petitioners
maintain
congress
intended
permit
enforcement
state
fraud
rules
defeat
labeling
act
purpose
preventing
nonuniform
state
warning
requirements
observed
cipollone
however
fraud
claims
rely
single
uniform
standard
falsity
plurality
opinion
although
clear
fidelity
act
purposes
demand
state
fraud
rules
principal
question
must
decide
whether
text
nevertheless
requires
result
iii
construed
operative
phrases
two
prior
cases
cipollone
reilly
occasions
recognized
phrase
based
smoking
health
modifies
rule
issue
rather
particular
application
rule
cipollone
plurality
consisted
chief
justice
rehnquist
justices
white
stevens
read
provision
amendments
labeling
act
rules
well
positive
enactments
unlike
justices
blackmun
kennedy
souter
plurality
concluded
provision
preclude
claims
relationship
smoking
health
determine
whether
particular
claim
plurality
inquired
whether
legal
duty
predicate
damages
action
constitutes
prohibition
based
smoking
health
respect
advertising
promotion
giving
clause
fair
narrow
reading
applying
standard
plurality
held
plaintiff
claim
cigarette
manufacturers
fraudulently
misrepresented
concealed
material
fact
claim
alleged
violation
manufacturers
duty
deceive
duty
based
smoking
health
respondents
case
also
allege
violation
duty
deceive
duty
codified
mutpa
duty
codified
state
statute
like
duty
imposed
state
rule
issue
cipollone
nothing
smoking
petitioners
endeavor
distance
holding
arguing
respondents
claim
analogous
warning
neutralization
claim
found
cipollone
although
plurality
understood
plaintiff
presented
claim
theory
fraudulent
misrepresentation
gravamen
claim
defendants
failure
warn
predicated
prohibition
statements
advertising
promotional
materials
tend
minimize
health
hazards
associated
smoking
thus
understood
cipollone
plurality
analysis
warning
neutralization
claim
application
petitioners
nonetheless
contend
respondents
claim
like
warning
neutralization
claim
based
statements
might
create
false
impression
rather
statements
inherently
false
brief
petitioners
extent
falsehood
alleged
alter
nature
claim
nothing
labeling
act
text
purpose
plurality
opinion
cipollone
suggests
whether
claim
turns
way
distinction
misleading
inherently
false
statements
petitioners
misunderstanding
one
led
appeals
fifth
circuit
confronted
light
descriptors
claim
reach
result
odds
appeals
decision
case
see
brown
certainly
extent
falsehood
alleged
may
bear
whether
plaintiff
prove
fraud
claim
merits
respondents
claim
us
erroneous
distinction
set
aside
clear
holding
cipollone
fraud
claim
directly
applicable
statutory
claim
issue
case
true
claim
cipollone
respondents
claim
deceptive
statements
light
lowered
tar
nicotine
induced
purchase
petitioners
product
alleges
breach
duty
sure
presence
federally
mandated
warnings
may
bear
materiality
petitioners
allegedly
fraudulent
statements
possibility
change
respondents
case
one
statements
one
warnings
decision
reilly
consistent
cipollone
analysis
reilly
involved
regulations
promulgated
massachusetts
attorney
general
order
address
incidence
cigarette
smoking
smokeless
tobacco
use
children
legal
age
order
prevent
access
products
underage
customers
quoting
code
mass
regs
regulations
pertain
content
advertising
rather
placed
variety
restrictions
certain
cigarette
sales
location
outdoor
cigarette
advertising
attorney
general
promulgated
restrictions
pursuant
statutory
authority
prevent
unfair
deceptive
trade
practices
mass
laws
ch
west
although
attorney
general
authority
derived
general
deceptive
practices
statute
like
one
issue
case
challenged
regulations
targeted
advertising
tended
promote
tobacco
use
children
instead
prohibiting
false
misleading
statements
thus
whereas
prohibition
cipollone
fraud
rule
prohibitions
reilly
targeted
regulations
accordingly
holding
reilly
regulations
provides
support
argument
general
prohibition
deceptive
practices
based
harm
caused
specific
kind
deception
prohibition
applied
given
case
true
petitioners
argue
appeal
advertising
based
relationship
smoking
health
although
respondents
expressly
repudiated
claim
damages
personal
injuries
see
app
actual
injuries
likely
encompass
harms
health
well
monetary
injuries
allege
arguments
unavailing
however
text
refer
harms
related
smoking
health
rather
requirements
prohibitions
rules
based
smoking
health
mutpa
says
nothing
either
smoking
health
general
rule
creates
duty
deceive
therefore
unlike
regulations
issue
petitioners
argue
alternative
reject
express
framework
established
cipollone
plurality
relied
reilly
invoke
reasons
set
forth
separate
opinions
justice
blackmun
especially
criticized
plurality
holding
claim
justice
scalia
argued
fraud
claim
also
acknowledge
analysis
claims
may
lack
theoretical
elegance
remain
persuaded
represents
fair
understanding
congressional
purpose
cipollone
plurality
opinion
petitioners
also
contend
plurality
opinion
inconsistent
decisions
american
airlines
wolens
riegel
medtronic
cases
however
inapposite
first
involved
provision
much
broader
labeling
act
second
involved
precisely
type
state
rule
congress
intended
issue
wolens
effect
airline
deregulation
act
ada
app
ed
prohibits
enacting
enforcing
law
relating
rates
routes
services
air
carrier
plaintiffs
case
sought
bring
claim
illinois
consumer
fraud
deceptive
business
practices
act
comp
ch
west
conclusion
claim
turned
unusual
breadth
ada
provision
previously
held
meaning
key
phrase
ada
provision
rates
routes
services
broad
one
morales
trans
world
airlines
emphasis
added
relying
precedents
construing
effect
phrase
employee
retirement
income
security
act
concluded
phrase
relating
indicates
congress
intent
large
area
state
law
purpose
deregulating
airline
industry
unquestionably
phrase
relating
broader
scope
labeling
act
reference
rules
based
smoking
health
whereas
relating
synonymous
connection
based
describes
direct
relationship
see
safeco
ins
america
burr
slip
common
talk
phrase
indicates
causal
relationship
thus
necessary
logical
condition
petitioners
reliance
riegel
similarly
misplaced
plaintiffs
riegel
sought
bring
design
manufacturing
labeling
defect
claims
manufacturer
faulty
catheter
case
presented
question
whether
claims
expressly
medical
device
amendments
mda
et
seq
mda
clause
provides
state
establish
continue
effect
respect
device
requirement
relating
safety
effectiveness
different
addition
federal
requirements
riegel
slip
quoting
emphasis
deleted
catheter
issue
riegel
received
premarket
approval
food
drug
administration
fda
concluded
premarket
approval
imposes
requirement
relating
safety
effectiveness
fda
requires
device
received
premarket
approval
made
almost
design
manufacturing
labeling
deviations
specifications
approved
application
plaintiffs
products
liability
claims
fell
within
core
mda
provision
sought
impose
different
requirements
precisely
aspects
device
fda
approved
unlike
cipollone
plaintiff
fraud
claim
fell
outside
labeling
act
reach
seek
impose
prohibition
based
smoking
health
riegel
plaintiffs
products
liability
claims
unquestionably
sought
enforce
requirement
relating
safety
effectiveness
mda
relating
language
mda
provision
like
ada
much
broader
operative
language
labeling
act
provides
additional
basis
distinguishing
riegel
thus
contrary
petitioners
suggestion
riegel
entirely
consistent
holding
cipollone
sum
conclude
plurality
cipollone
phrase
smoking
health
fairly
narrowly
construed
encompass
general
duty
make
fraudulent
statements
iv
alternative
express
argument
petitioners
contend
respondents
claim
impliedly
allowed
proceed
present
obstacle
longstanding
policy
ftc
according
petitioners
ftc
decades
promoted
development
consumption
low
tar
cigarettes
encouraged
consumers
rely
representations
tar
nicotine
content
based
cambridge
filter
method
testing
choosing
among
cigarette
brands
even
regulatory
policy
provide
basis
obstacle
petitioners
description
ftc
actions
regard
inaccurate
government
disavows
policy
authorizing
use
light
low
tar
descriptors
brief
amicus
curiae
following
publication
surgeon
general
report
smoking
health
ftc
issued
industry
guidance
stating
view
factual
statement
tar
nicotine
content
expressed
milligrams
mainstream
smoke
cigarette
measured
cambridge
filter
method
testing
violate
ftc
act
app
commission
made
clear
however
guidance
applied
factual
assertions
tar
nicotine
yields
invite
collateral
representations
made
expressly
implication
reduction
elimination
health
hazards
year
later
ftc
reiterated
position
letter
national
association
broadcasters
letter
explained
general
rule
commission
challenge
statements
tar
nicotine
content
shown
accurate
fully
substantiated
tests
conducted
accordance
cambridge
filter
method
ftc
considered
providing
guidance
proposing
rule
required
manufacturers
disclose
tar
nicotine
yields
measured
cambridge
filter
method
testing
fed
reg
leading
cigarette
manufacturers
responded
submitting
voluntary
agreement
disclose
tar
nicotine
content
advertising
app
ftc
suspended
rulemaking
fed
reg
based
events
petitioners
assert
ftc
required
tobacco
companies
disclose
tar
nicotine
yields
cigarette
advertising
using
testing
methodology
authorized
use
descriptors
shorthand
references
numerical
test
results
brief
petitioners
emphasis
original
foregoing
history
shows
however
ftc
fact
never
required
cigarette
manufacturers
disclose
tar
nicotine
yields
condoned
representations
yields
use
light
low
tar
descriptors
subsequent
commission
actions
undermine
petitioners
claim
tobacco
companies
agreed
report
tar
nicotine
yields
measured
cambridge
filter
method
ftc
continued
police
cigarette
companies
misleading
use
test
results
ftc
responded
findings
tar
nicotine
yields
barclay
cigarettes
obtained
cambridge
filter
method
testing
deceptive
cigarettes
fact
delivered
disproportionately
tar
smokers
cigarettes
similar
cambridge
filter
method
ratings
fed
reg
ftc
found
manufacturer
representation
consumers
get
less
tar
smoking
ten
packs
carlton
brand
cigarettes
smoking
single
pack
brands
deceptive
even
though
based
results
cambridge
filter
method
testing
american
tobacco
ftc
conclusion
based
recognition
truth
fact
consumers
necessarily
get
less
tar
due
behavior
compensatory
smoking
history
shows
contrary
petitioners
suggestion
ftc
longstanding
policy
authorizing
collateral
representations
based
cambridge
filter
method
test
results
rather
ftc
endeavored
inform
consumers
comparative
tar
nicotine
content
different
cigarette
brands
instances
prevented
misleading
representations
cambridge
filter
method
test
results
ftc
failure
require
petitioners
correct
allegedly
misleading
use
light
descriptors
evidence
contrary
agency
nonenforcement
federal
statute
policy
approval
cf
sprietsma
mercury
marine
holding
coast
guard
decision
regulate
propeller
guards
impliedly
petitioner
tort
claims
telling
ftc
recent
statements
regarding
use
light
low
tar
descriptors
commission
observed
official
definitions
terms
light
low
tar
sought
comments
whether
need
official
guidance
respect
terms
whether
descriptors
convey
implied
health
claims
fed
reg
november
following
public
notice
comment
commission
rescinded
guidance
concerning
cambridge
filter
method
fed
reg
rescission
response
consensus
among
public
health
scientific
communities
cambridge
filter
method
sufficiently
flawed
statements
tar
nicotine
yields
measured
method
likely
help
consumers
make
informed
decisions
commission
notice
proposal
rescind
guidance
also
reiterated
original
limits
guidance
noting
addresse
simple
factual
statements
tar
nicotine
yields
id
apply
conduct
express
implied
representations
even
concern
ed
tar
nicotine
yields
short
neither
handful
industry
guidances
consent
orders
petitioners
rely
ftc
inaction
regard
light
descriptors
even
arguably
justifies
state
deceptive
practices
rules
like
mutpa
conclude
cipollone
labeling
act
claims
like
respondents
predicated
duty
deceive
also
hold
ftc
various
decisions
respect
statements
tar
nicotine
content
impliedly
respondents
claim
respondents
still
must
prove
petitioners
use
light
lowered
tar
descriptors
fact
violated
state
deceptive
practices
statute
neither
labeling
act
provision
ftc
actions
field
prevent
jury
considering
claim
accordingly
judgment
appeals
affirmed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
altria
group
et
petitioners
stephanie
good
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
first
circuit
december
justice
thomas
chief
justice
justice
scalia
justice
alito
join
dissenting
appeal
requires
revisit
decision
cipollone
liggett
group
case
question
us
whether
claims
alleging
cigarette
manufacturers
misled
public
health
effects
cigarettes
federal
cigarette
labeling
advertising
act
amended
labeling
act
act
labeling
act
requires
specific
health
warnings
placed
cigarette
packaging
advertising
order
eliminate
diverse
nonuniform
confusing
cigarette
labeling
advertising
regulations
respect
relationship
smoking
health
end
labeling
act
requirement
prohibition
based
smoking
health
imposed
state
law
respect
advertising
promotion
cigarettes
whether
state
claims
divided
cipollone
plurality
opinion
found
claims
expressly
others
depending
whether
legal
duty
predicate
damages
action
constitutes
requirement
prohibition
based
smoking
health
imposed
state
law
respect
advertising
promotion
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
emphasis
added
majority
disagreed
plurality
approach
blackmun
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
part
dissenting
part
scalia
concurring
judgment
part
dissenting
part
particular
justice
scalia
recognized
plurality
interpretation
created
unworkable
test
little
relationship
text
statute
intervening
years
vindicated
justice
scalia
critical
assessment
lower
courts
consistently
expressed
frustration
difficulty
applying
cipollone
plurality
test
moreover
recent
decisions
undermined
cases
overruled
central
aspects
plurality
atextual
approach
express
generally
riegel
medtronic
labeling
act
specifically
lorillard
tobacco
reilly
majority
today
ignores
problems
adopts
methodology
cipollone
plurality
governing
law
consequence
majority
concludes
liability
deceiving
purchasers
health
effects
smoking
light
cigarettes
requirement
prohibition
based
smoking
health
labeling
act
fidelity
cipollone
unwise
unnecessary
instead
provide
lower
courts
clear
test
advances
congress
stated
goals
interpreting
expressly
claim
imposes
obligation
effect
smoking
upon
health
cipollone
supra
opinion
scalia
respondents
lawsuit
maine
unfair
trade
practices
act
mutpa
rev
stat
tit
supp
expressly
labeling
act
civil
action
premised
allegation
cigarette
manufacturers
misled
respondents
believing
smoking
light
cigarettes
healthier
smoking
regular
cigarettes
judgment
respondents
favor
thus
result
requirement
petitioners
represent
effects
smoking
health
particular
way
advertising
promotion
light
cigarettes
liability
case
thereby
premised
effect
smoking
health
hold
respondents
claims
expressly
labeling
act
respectfully
dissent
cipollone
smoker
spouse
brought
state
claims
fraud
breach
warranty
failure
warn
cigarette
manufacturers
alleged
failure
adequately
disclose
health
risks
smoking
cigarette
manufacturer
asserted
claims
labeling
act
deciding
case
agree
meaning
labeling
act
express
provision
produced
three
separate
opinions
none
reflected
views
majority
justices
relying
heavily
presumption
state
police
power
regulations
plurality
opinion
justice
stevens
settled
narrow
reading
labeling
act
tested
effect
approach
approach
considered
claim
asked
whether
predicated
duty
smoking
health
see
also
claim
however
claim
predicated
general
obligation
state
law
may
proceed
applying
test
conceded
lacked
theoretical
elegance
plurality
held
claims
extent
claims
rel
ied
omissions
inclusions
advertising
promotions
cigarettes
true
one
fraud
claims
alleged
cigarette
manufacturers
used
advertising
neutralize
federally
required
warning
labels
plurality
determined
claims
predicated
prohibition
statements
tend
minimize
health
hazards
associated
smoking
thus
according
plurality
claims
sought
recovery
theory
cigarette
manufacturer
breached
duty
based
smoking
health
plurality
found
fraud
claim
alleged
misrepresentation
concealment
material
fact
based
general
obligation
duty
deceive
justice
blackmun
writing
three
justices
departed
plurality
antecedent
question
whether
labeling
act
state
damages
claims
opinion
joined
kennedy
souter
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
part
dissenting
part
concluded
phrase
referred
positive
enactments
statutes
regulations
justice
blackmun
specifically
noted
even
state
claims
within
scope
labeling
act
join
plurality
approach
perceive
principled
basis
many
plurality
asserted
distinctions
among
claims
justice
blackmun
wrote
congress
intended
create
hodgepodge
allowed
disallowed
claims
amended
provision
lamented
difficulty
lower
courts
ould
encounter
attempting
implement
plurality
test
justice
scalia
writing
two
justices
also
faulted
plurality
approach
opinion
joined
thomas
concurring
judgment
part
dissenting
part
although
agreed
plurality
phrase
encompassed
state
claims
well
state
statutes
regulations
justice
scalia
objected
plurality
invocation
presumption
narrowly
interpret
congress
expressed
intent
state
law
enacting
responsibility
apply
text
ordinary
principles
statutory
construction
employing
newly
crafted
doctrine
narrow
construction
justice
scalia
wrote
plurality
arrived
cramped
unnatural
construction
failed
give
effect
statutory
text
applying
ordinary
principles
statutory
construction
justice
scalia
determined
proper
test
claims
far
less
complicated
plurality
approach
explained
nce
one
forced
select
consistent
methodology
evaluating
whether
given
legal
duty
smoking
health
becomes
obvious
methodology
must
focus
upon
ultimate
source
duty
upon
proximate
application
proximate
application
test
therefore
focuses
duty
invoked
plaintiff
effect
suit
cigarette
manufacturer
conduct
requirement
prohibition
imposed
state
law
put
simply
whatever
source
duty
claim
imposes
obligation
effect
smoking
upon
health
see
also
test
setting
one
practical
compulsion
whether
law
practically
compels
manufacturers
engage
behavior
congress
barred
prescribing
directly
justice
scalia
also
seconded
justice
blackmun
concern
lower
courts
find
plurality
distinctions
materially
identical
claims
incapable
application
disposition
raises
questions
answers
serve
country
well
ii
sixteen
years
later
must
confront
cipollone
resolve
question
presented
case
whether
respondents
claims
fraudulent
marketing
mutpa
labeling
act
majority
adheres
cipollone
remain
persuaded
plurality
construction
ante
disagree
discard
cipollone
plurality
approach
replace
justice
scalia
far
workable
textually
sound
proximate
application
test
majority
assert
cipollone
plurality
opinion
binding
precedent
rightly
plurality
opinion
represent
views
majority
bound
reasoning
cts
dynamics
america
omitted
cipollone
point
reference
discussion
texas
brown
plurality
opinion
even
plurality
opinion
force
beyond
mere
persuasive
value
nevertheless
abandoned
unworkable
overtaken
recent
decisions
reconciled
commonsense
reading
text
predicted
majority
justices
cipollone
plurality
opinion
approach
proved
unworkable
lower
federal
courts
state
courts
district
case
properly
observed
courts
remain
divided
decision
means
apply
cipollone
distinctions
though
clear
theory
defy
clear
application
supp
courts
expressed
similar
frustration
cipollone
framework
see
glassner
reynolds
tobacco
applying
plurality
opinion
cipollone
complaint
present
case
easy
task
huddleston
reynolds
tobacco
supp
nd
understatement
say
difficult
apply
plurality
opinion
cipollone
amended
complaint
case
impossibility
welding
fume
prods
liability
litigation
supp
nd
ohio
cipollone
delivered
fractured
plurality
opinion
easy
comprehend
whiteley
philip
morris
cal
app
cal
rptr
cipollone
due
inherent
contradiction
core
case
mangini
reynolds
tobacco
cal
rptr
cal
app
cipollone
draws
bright
lines
amenable
easy
application
aff
cal
retain
interpretative
test
proved
incapable
implementation
mischievous
consequences
litigants
courts
alike
perpetuation
unworkable
rule
great
swift
wickham
federal
election
wisconsin
right
life
slip
scalia
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
stare
decisis
considerations
carry
little
weight
erroneous
decisio
created
legal
regime
quoting
payne
tennessee
owe
far
lower
courts
depend
guidance
litigants
must
conform
actions
interpretation
federal
law
cipollone
plurality
test
abandoned
reason
alone
furthermore
years
since
cipollone
decided
altered
doctrinal
approach
express
cipollone
plurality
justified
described
theoretical
elegance
construction
relying
presumption
argued
required
narrow
fair
construction
statute
see
majority
opinion
presumption
reinforces
appropriateness
narrow
reading
plurality
opinion
must
narrowly
construe
precise
language
must
given
fair
narrow
reading
conclude
phrase
smoking
health
fairly
narrowly
construed
encompass
general
duty
make
fraudulent
statements
course
justice
scalia
explained
nothing
fair
imposing
artificially
narrow
construction
labeling
act
provision
see
explaining
presumption
dissolves
conclusive
evidence
intent
express
words
statute
since
cipollone
reliance
presumption
waned
express
context
example
unanimously
explained
task
statutory
construction
must
first
instance
focus
plain
wording
express
clause
necessarily
contains
best
evidence
congress
intent
sprietsma
mercury
marine
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
without
referring
presumption
decided
federal
boat
safety
act
express
provision
claims
decisions
since
cipollone
also
refrained
invoking
presumption
context
express
see
rowe
new
hampshire
motor
transp
engine
mfrs
assn
south
coast
air
quality
management
buckman
plaintiffs
legal
locke
geier
american
honda
motor
invoked
presumption
sporadically
time
frame
majority
notes
ante
medtronic
lohr
applied
presumption
deciding
federal
manufacturing
labeling
requirements
medical
device
amendments
mda
state
claims
like
cipollone
lohr
produced
fractured
decision
featuring
three
opinions
opinion
stevens
breyer
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
concurring
part
dissenting
part
like
cipollone
lohr
approach
express
predates
recent
jurisprudence
topic
fact
last
year
revisited
provision
mda
employ
presumption
riegel
medtronic
see
infra
recently
reilly
case
revisiting
meaning
labeling
act
briefly
alluded
presumption
rely
reach
decision
see
indeed
cursory
treatment
presumption
reilly
stands
stark
contrast
first
circuit
decision
reversed
first
circuit
relied
heavily
full
force
presumption
determine
regulations
issue
see
consolidated
cigar
reilly
overturning
judgment
declined
employ
presumption
construction
see
reilly
justice
stevens
highlighted
point
dissent
arguing
presumption
faithfully
applied
result
different
majority
also
relies
bates
dow
agrosciences
llc
presumption
mentioned
dicta
reilly
presumption
drive
construction
statute
issue
explaining
presumption
meant
holding
even
respondent
alternative
construction
statute
plausible
reading
text
see
also
thomas
concurring
judgment
part
dissenting
part
agreeing
case
vacated
remanded
reiterating
presumption
apply
congress
included
within
statute
express
provision
bottom
although
treatment
presumption
uniform
express
cases
since
cipollone
marked
retreat
reliance
distort
statutory
text
doubt
remained
eliminated
last
term
riegel
question
riegel
noted
whether
mda
expressly
state
claims
challenging
safety
effectiveness
medical
device
given
premarket
approval
food
drug
administration
slip
dissent
one
justice
held
claims
requirements
plaintiffs
sought
impose
addition
requirement
applicable
federal
law
slip
quoting
interpreted
statute
without
reference
presumption
perceived
need
impose
narrow
construction
provision
order
protect
police
power
rather
simply
construed
mda
accordance
ordinary
principles
statutory
construction
accidental
dissent
focused
refusal
invoke
presumption
order
save
claims
slip
opinion
ginsburg
dissent
adamant
ederal
laws
containing
preemption
clause
automatically
escape
presumption
ibid
slip
slip
text
clause
open
one
plausible
reading
courts
ordinarily
reading
disfavors
quoting
bates
supra
accordance
presumption
dissent
found
claims
review
fall
beyond
reach
mda
express
provision
slip
see
also
slip
slip
rejecting
majority
construction
presumption
operative
even
construing
preemption
clause
given
dissent
clear
call
use
presumption
decision
invoke
necessarily
rejection
role
presumption
construing
statute
justice
stevens
also
declined
invoke
presumption
opinion
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
view
significance
provision
mda
fully
appreciated
many
years
enacted
therefore
statute
whose
text
general
objective
cover
territory
actually
envisioned
authors
slip
justice
stevens
opinion
riegel
unlike
majority
opinion
plurality
opinion
cipollone
dissenting
opinion
riegel
invoke
presumption
bend
text
statute
meet
perceived
purpose
congress
instead
justice
stevens
correctly
found
ultimately
provisions
laws
rather
principal
concerns
legislators
governed
slip
quoting
oncale
sundowner
offshore
services
light
riegel
authority
invoking
presumption
express
cases
majority
thus
turns
lohr
revive
presumption
turn
justify
restrictive
reading
labeling
act
express
provision
riegel
plainly
shows
longer
willing
unreasonably
interpret
expressly
federal
laws
name
purpose
ante
congress
legislated
field
traditionally
occupied
ante
text
statute
must
control
riegel
also
undermined
cipollone
even
fundamental
way
conclusively
decided
cause
action
imposes
may
federal
law
slip
absent
indication
reference
state
includes
duties
indeed
one
think
tort
law
applied
juries
negligence
standard
less
deserving
preservation
regulatory
legislation
justice
blackmun
contrary
interpretation
labeling
act
cipollone
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
part
dissenting
part
provided
votes
necessary
judgment
thus
longer
tenable
light
riegel
rejection
presumption
relied
plurality
well
definition
requirements
relied
justice
blackmun
concurring
opinion
cipollone
approach
express
nothing
remnant
abandoned
doctrine
planned
parenthood
southeastern
casey
cipollone
plurality
reading
labeling
act
undermined
decision
reilly
confronted
regulations
imposed
massachusetts
attorney
general
location
tobacco
advertising
pursuant
commonwealth
unfair
trade
practices
statute
found
regulations
extent
applied
cigarettes
expressly
although
massachusetts
remained
free
enact
generally
applicable
zoning
restrictions
imposition
special
requirements
prohibitions
smoking
health
respect
advertising
promotion
fell
within
ambit
sweep
reilly
ignore
cipollone
cited
plurality
opinion
extensively
discussion
basic
history
text
labeling
act
analyzing
whether
regulations
enacted
massachusetts
attorney
general
expressly
silent
cipollone
unlike
district
saw
central
question
purposes
whether
regulations
create
predicate
legal
duty
based
smoking
health
substantive
examination
regulations
included
mention
cipollone
plurality
predicate
duty
test
see
instead
disagreed
attorney
general
narrow
construction
statute
smoking
language
concluded
regulations
motivated
intertwined
concerns
smoking
health
reilly
therefore
reconciled
cipollone
plurality
interpretation
labeling
act
regulations
issue
reilly
enacted
implement
massachusetts
state
law
imposing
duty
unfair
deceptive
trade
practices
predicate
duty
asserted
mutpa
case
duty
issue
reilly
less
general
duty
issue
case
fraud
claims
confronted
cipollone
compare
mass
laws
ch
west
unfair
methods
competition
unfair
deceptive
acts
practices
conduct
trade
commerce
hereby
declared
unlawful
rev
stat
tit
supp
unfair
methods
competition
unfair
deceptive
acts
practices
conduct
trade
commerce
declared
unlawful
cipollone
supra
explaining
predicate
plaintiff
fraudulent
misrepresentation
claim
duty
make
false
statements
material
fact
conceal
facts
faithful
application
cipollone
plurality
opinion
therefore
required
reilly
uphold
regulations
indeed
justice
stevens
argued
much
dissent
noting
ary
word
three
cipollone
opinions
supports
thesis
interpreted
state
regulation
location
signs
advertising
cigarettes
yet
majority
today
finds
reilly
cipollone
perfectly
compatible
contends
although
regulations
question
reilly
derived
general
deceptive
practices
statute
like
one
issue
case
targeted
advertising
tended
promote
tobacco
use
children
instead
prohibiting
false
misleading
statements
ante
according
majority
legal
duty
contrasts
regulations
mutpa
says
nothing
either
ante
see
also
ante
cipollone
plurality
expressly
rejected
distinction
targeted
regulations
like
reilly
general
duties
imposed
common
law
fact
general
duties
underlying
claims
cipollone
plurality
found
say
nothing
smoking
health
see
also
scalia
concurring
judgment
part
dissenting
part
noting
duty
warn
product
dangers
specifically
crafted
eye
toward
accordingly
reilly
better
understood
establishing
even
general
duty
impose
requirements
prohibitions
based
smoking
health
reilly
weakened
force
cipollone
plurality
predicate
duty
approach
effect
cast
doubt
continuing
utility
finally
cipollone
plurality
approach
discarded
predicate
duty
approach
unpersuasive
initial
matter
considering
claim
example
cipollone
plurality
asserted
claim
predicated
prohibition
minimizing
health
risks
associated
smoking
today
reaffirms
view
ante
see
also
ante
describing
expressly
rules
based
smoking
health
every
products
liability
action
including
action
applies
generally
products
see
cipollone
supra
opinion
scalia
thus
duty
rule
involved
claim
specific
smoking
health
fraud
claim
based
duty
rule
use
deceptive
misleading
trade
practices
yet
latter
cipollone
plurality
content
ignore
context
claim
asserted
shifting
level
generality
identified
logical
weakness
original
cipollone
plurality
decision
majority
blackmun
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
part
dissenting
part
opinion
scalia
remains
equally
unconvincing
today
therefore
unsurprising
defense
plurality
confusing
test
confined
one
sentence
see
ante
acknowledge
analysis
claims
may
lack
elegance
remain
persuaded
represents
fair
understanding
congressional
quoting
cipollone
supra
ante
majority
instead
argues
approach
fails
explain
congress
permi
cigarette
manufacturers
engage
fraudulent
advertising
ante
explanation
necessary
text
speaks
congress
claims
impose
requirement
prohibition
based
smoking
health
thus
cigarette
manufacturers
falsely
advertise
products
official
cigarette
major
league
baseball
claims
arising
wrongful
behavior
furthermore
contrary
majority
policy
arguments
faithful
application
statutory
language
authorize
fraudulent
advertising
respect
smoking
misleading
promotional
statements
cigarettes
remain
subject
federal
regulatory
oversight
labeling
act
see
relevant
question
thus
whether
petitioners
prohibited
selling
tar
cigarettes
actually
light
actually
deliver
less
tar
nicotine
ante
rather
issue
whether
labeling
act
allows
regulators
juries
decide
basis
whether
petitioners
light
descriptors
fact
fraudulent
instead
whether
charged
federal
government
reaching
comprehensive
judgment
respect
question
congress
chose
uniform
federal
standard
labeling
act
congress
establish
ed
comprehensive
federal
program
deal
cigarette
labeling
advertising
commerce
national
economy
may
impeded
diverse
nonuniform
confusing
cigarette
labeling
advertising
regulations
respect
relationship
smoking
health
majority
distorted
interpretation
defeats
express
congressional
purpose
opening
door
untold
number
lawsuits
across
country
question
whether
marketing
light
cigarette
light
compensatory
behavior
almost
certainly
answered
differently
state
state
cipollone
supra
opinion
scalia
inevitably
result
nonuniform
imposition
liability
marketing
light
cigarettes
precise
problem
congress
intended
remedy
light
serious
flaws
majority
approach
even
cipollone
plurality
opinion
binding
precedent
hesitate
allow
precedent
yield
true
meaning
act
congress
statutory
precedent
reasoned
clark
martinez
thomas
dissenting
quoting
holder
hall
thomas
concurring
judgment
turn
quoting
payne
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
confusion
following
splintered
decision
reason
reexamining
decision
nichols
decision
failed
properly
interpret
statute
place
shoulders
congress
burden
error
girouard
iii
applying
proper
test
whether
jury
verdict
respondents
claims
impos
obligation
cigarette
manufacturer
effect
smoking
upon
health
cipollone
supra
scalia
concurring
judgment
part
dissenting
part
respondents
claims
expressly
labeling
act
respondents
longtime
smokers
marlboro
lights
claim
suffered
injury
result
petitioners
decision
advertise
cigarettes
light
low
nicotine
products
supp
claim
petitioners
marketed
cigarettes
light
products
despite
knowledge
smokers
engage
compensatory
behavior
causing
inhale
least
much
tar
nicotine
smokers
regular
cigarettes
ibid
respondents
thus
allege
misled
thinking
gaining
health
advantage
smoking
light
cigarettes
result
petitioners
conduct
unfair
deceptive
act
practice
mutpa
rev
stat
tit
supp
respondents
claims
seek
impose
liability
petitioners
effect
smoking
light
cigarettes
health
alleged
misrepresentation
light
cigarettes
healthy
advertised
actionable
effect
smoking
light
cigarettes
respondents
health
otherwise
alleged
misrepresentation
effect
cigarettes
health
immaterial
purposes
mutpa
source
injuries
provided
impetus
lawsuit
see
state
weinschenk
act
practice
deceptive
mutpa
material
representation
omission
act
practice
likely
mislead
consumers
acting
reasonably
circumstances
emphasis
added
therefore
suit
respondents
seek
require
cigarette
manufacturers
provide
additional
warnings
compensatory
behavior
prohibit
selling
products
light
descriptors
exactly
type
lawsuit
labeling
act
cf
rowe
slip
finding
maine
regulation
shipping
tobacco
products
maine
law
produces
effect
federal
law
sought
avoid
proper
test
look
factual
basis
complaint
determine
claim
imposes
requirement
based
smoking
health
meaningful
distinction
drawn
case
claims
claims
majority
readily
admits
types
claims
impose
duties
respect
conduct
marketing
light
cigarettes
see
ante
claims
arise
identical
conduct
claims
impose
requirement
prohibition
respect
conduct
allegedly
wrongful
conduct
involves
misleading
statements
health
effects
smoking
particular
brand
cigarette
liability
resulting
requirement
prohibition
definition
based
smoking
health
finally
oral
argument
respondents
argued
claims
impose
requirements
based
smoking
health
damages
seek
recover
based
effect
smoking
health
rather
respondents
asking
difference
value
product
thought
buying
product
actually
bought
tr
oral
arg
requirement
prohibition
covered
created
imposition
liability
particular
conduct
way
petitioners
marketed
light
cigarettes
manner
respondents
chosen
measure
damages
matter
respondents
characterize
damages
claim
injured
purposes
mutpa
thus
recover
unless
decision
purchase
cigarettes
negative
effect
health
event
respondents
sought
injunctive
relief
may
appropriate
case
app
mutpa
specifically
authorizes
equitable
relief
including
injunction
remedy
unfair
deceptive
trade
practices
rev
stat
tit
west
injunction
prohibiting
petitioners
marketing
light
cigarettes
less
requirement
prohibition
regulations
found
reilly
end
matter
form
remedy
takes
liability
respect
specific
claim
still
creates
requirement
prohibition
liability
necessarily
premised
effects
smoking
health
respondents
claims
civil
action
labeling
act
iv
today
elects
convert
cipollone
plurality
opinion
binding
law
notwithstanding
weakened
doctrinal
foundation
atextual
construction
statute
lower
courts
inability
apply
methodology
resulting
confusion
nature
claim
predicate
duty
inevitable
disagreement
lower
courts
type
representations
material
misleading
perverse
effect
increasing
nonuniformity
state
regulation
cigarette
advertising
exact
problem
congress
intended
remedy
may
even
force
us
yet
revisit
interpretation
labeling
act
believe
respondents
claims
labeling
act
respectfully
dissent
footnotes
mutpa
provides
relevant
nfair
methods
competition
unfair
deceptive
acts
practices
conduct
trade
commerce
declared
unlawful
construing
section
courts
guided
interpretations
given
federal
trade
commission
federal
courts
section
federal
trade
commission
act
code
time
time
amended
cambridge
filter
method
weighs
measures
tar
nicotine
collected
smoking
machine
takes
milliliter
puffs
two
seconds
duration
every
seconds
cigarette
smoked
specified
butt
length
app
discussed
federal
trade
commission
ftc
commission
signaled
cambridge
filter
method
acceptable
means
measuring
tar
nicotine
content
cigarettes
never
required
manufacturers
publish
test
results
advertisements
stat
pub
stat
though
actually
enacted
congress
directed
cited
act
comprehensive
smoking
education
act
pub
stat
petitioners
also
urge
us
find
support
claim
congress
gave
ftc
exclusive
authority
police
deceptive
claims
cigarette
advertising
refer
labeling
act
saving
clause
clause
provides
apart
warning
requirement
nothing
act
shall
construed
limit
restrict
expand
otherwise
affect
authority
federal
trade
commission
respect
unfair
deceptive
acts
practices
advertising
cigarettes
plurality
previously
read
clause
indicat
congress
intended
phrase
smoking
health
construed
narrowly
proscribe
regulation
deceptive
advertising
cipollone
liggett
group
nothing
clause
suggests
congress
meant
proscribe
historic
regulation
deceptive
advertising
practices
ftc
long
depended
cooperative
state
regulation
achieve
mission
although
one
smallest
administrative
agencies
charged
policing
enormous
amount
activity
see
kanwit
federal
trade
commission
ed
supp
moreover
labeling
act
amended
even
clear
ftc
possessed
rulemaking
authority
see
stat
making
highly
unlikely
congress
intended
assign
exclusively
ftc
substantial
task
overseeing
deceptive
practices
cigarette
advertisements
dissent
justice
thomas
criticizes
reliance
plurality
opinion
cipollone
post
advocates
adopting
analysis
set
forth
justice
scalia
opinion
concurring
judgment
part
dissenting
part
case
post
justice
scalia
approach
rejected
seven
members
almost
years
since
cipollone
decided
congress
done
nothing
indicate
approval
approach
moreover
justice
thomas
fails
explain
congress
intended
result
justice
scalia
approach
produce
namely
permitting
cigarette
manufacturers
engage
fraudulent
advertising
majority
concluded
cipollone
nothing
labeling
act
language
purpose
supports
result
cipollone
plurality
stated
warning
neutralization
claim
merely
converse
requirement
warnings
included
advertising
promotional
materials
evincing
plurality
recognition
warning
neutralization
claims
two
sides
coin
justice
thomas
criticism
plurality
treatment
claim
post
beside
point
claim
issue
litigation
appeals
observed
respondents
allegations
regarding
petitioners
use
statements
light
lowered
tar
nicotine
also
support
warning
neutralization
claim
respondents
bring
claim
fact
petitioners
suggest
elevate
form
substance
nothing
new
recognition
conduct
might
violate
multiple
proscriptions
justice
thomas
contends
respondents
fraud
claim
must
judgment
favor
result
petitioners
represent
effects
smoking
health
particular
way
advertising
promotion
light
cigarettes
post
asserts
respondents
seek
require
cigarette
manufacturers
provide
additional
warnings
compensatory
behavior
prohibit
selling
products
descriptors
post
mischaracterizes
relief
respondents
seek
respondents
prevail
trial
petitioners
prohibited
selling
light
low
tar
cigarettes
actually
light
actually
deliver
less
tar
nicotine
barring
intervening
federal
regulation
petitioners
remain
free
make
nonfraudulent
use
light
descriptors
implementing
mutpa
neither
state
legislature
state
attorney
general
enacted
set
special
rules
guidelines
targeted
cigarette
advertising
noted
cipollone
threatened
enactment
new
state
warning
requirements
rather
enforcement
general
prohibitions
deceptive
practices
prompted
congressional
action
petitioners
also
point
morales
evidence
decision
cipollone
wrong
morales
predated
cipollone
event
even
easily
distinguishable
case
american
airlines
wolens
issue
morales
guidelines
regarding
form
substance
airline
fare
advertising
implemented
national
association
attorneys
general
give
content
state
deceptive
practices
rules
like
regulations
issue
reilly
guidelines
directives
targeted
subject
matter
made
ada
express
provisions
see
also
rowe
new
hampshire
motor
transp
holding
targeted
ground
carrier
regulations
statute
modeled
ada
different
action
ftc
charged
cigarette
manufacturer
violating
ftc
act
misleadingly
advertising
certain
brands
low
tar
even
though
tar
rating
see
american
brands
commission
manufacturer
entered
consent
order
prevented
manufacturer
making
representations
unless
accompanied
clear
conspicuous
disclosure
cigarettes
tar
nicotine
content
measured
cambridge
filter
method
petitioners
offer
consent
order
evidence
ftc
authorized
use
light
low
tar
descriptors
long
accurately
describe
cambridge
filter
method
test
results
government
observes
however
decree
enjoined
conduct
brief
amicus
curiae
consent
order
event
binding
parties
agreement
reasons
consent
order
support
conclusion
respondents
claim
impliedly
seems
particularly
inappropriate
read
policy
authorization
ftc
inaction
inaction
part
result
petitioners
failure
disclose
study
results
showing
cambridge
filter
method
test
results
reflect
amount
tar
nicotine
consumers
light
cigarettes
actually
inhale
see
footnotes
justice
scalia
also
criticized
plurality
announcing
new
rule
enactment
express
clause
eliminates
consideration
implied
explained
new
rule
created
mischief
combined
presumption
placed
heavy
burden
exactitude
congress
wishes
say
anything
see
cipollone
also
cipollone
liggett
group
fractured
decision
lohr
source
confusion
lower
courts
see
kemp
medtronic
various
courts
appeals
confronted
issues
preemption
arising
mda
struggled
mightily
lohr
language
effort
discern
holding
see
also
martin
medtronic
parts
justice
stevens
opinion
commanded
majority
extracting
final
meaning
lohr
easy
task
although
justice
breyer
concurrence
specifically
disavows
view
common
law
duties
provide
substantive
requirements
purpose
preemption
neither
concurrence
plurality
opinion
offers
much
help
us
developing
point
confusion
cleared
riegel
see
infra
majority
attack
easily
leveled
determination
labeling
act
claims
basis
fact
law
contend
labeling
act
encourages
marketing
hazardous
products
without
adequate
warning
labels
ante
basis
contend
text
labeling
act
permits
fraudulent
advertising
majority
contends
relatively
constrained
enforcement
power
federal
trade
commission
ftc
undermines
argument
congress
intended
labeling
act
prevent
regulating
deceptive
advertising
marketing
cigarettes
ante
unwilling
rely
majority
perception
relative
power
ftc
ignore
congress
stated
purpose
enacting
labeling
act
plain
meaning
act
express
provision
amicus
brief
oral
argument
conspicuously
declined
address
express
defend
cipollone
opinion
reasoning
see
brief
amicus
curiae
instead
addressed
question
implied
issue
reach
resolution
question
express
majority
observation
claim
issue
case
ante
misses
point
principal
weakness
cipollone
plurality
logic
distinction
claims
warning
neutralization
claims
fraud
fact
predicate
duty
underlying
new
jersey
products
liability
law
majority
claims
claim
derived
see
ante
specific
smoking
health
predicate
duty
underlying
fraud
claim
see
cipollone
opinion
scalia
duty
transcends
relationship
cigarette
companies
cigarette
smokers
neither
duty
specifically
crafted
eye
toward
opinion
blackmun
see
also
supra
thus
fraud
claims
must
stand
fall
together
majority
refusal
address
logical
inconsistency
approach
remains
glaring
today
cipollone