TRIP

Judge: health labels may stem tobacco co rights

Reuters Health News, 2012

Food and Drug Administration June 21, 2011, shows a varied collection of dead bodies, diseased lungs and a man on a ventilator were among the graphic images for revamped U.S.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal rule requiring large graphic health warnings on cigarette packaging and advertising may violate the free speech rights of tobacco companies, a U.S.
In a case that could wind up before the Supreme Court, five cigarette makers are suing to overturn a Food and Drug Administration rule requiring companies to label tobacco products with images of rotting teeth, diseased lungs and other images intended to illustrate the dangers of smoking.
The FDA was directed to adopt the rule by the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which requires color warning labels big enough to cover the top 50 percent of a cigarette pack's front and back panels, and the top 20 percent of print advertisements.
Reynolds unit, Lorillard Inc, Liggett Group LLC, Commonwealth Brands Inc, which is owned by Britain's Imperial Tobacco Group Plc, and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co Inc contend that the FDA rule would force them to engage in anti-smoking advocacy against their own legal products.
District Judge Richard Leon, who last November issued a temporary injunction blocking the rule, said he would issue his final ruling in the case well before April 10.
Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit is scheduled to hear the government's appeal of Leon's injunction.
Lawyers said a ruling before April 10 would give appellate judges leeway to rule on the case and the injunction at the same time.
In his injunction order, Leon agreed with cigarette makers that the government had failed to show how the graphic images met legal precedents requiring government-imposed labeling to be factual and uncontroversial.
Leon cast additional doubt on the legality of the rule on Wednesday by suggesting that Congress had ignored legal precedents protecting commercial speech from government control.
"There's nothing on the record to suggest that Congress gave any clear and thoughtful analysis on the First Amendment implications of this," the judge said.