The Legal Examiner Affiliate Network The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner search instagram avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner
Skip to main content

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.

Comments for this article are closed.