Supreme Court agrees to take Philip Morris case
Last updated Saturday, January 13, 2007 8:16 PM CST in News
By The Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed Friday to consider whether tobacco companies can be protected from state court judgments since cigarettes are regulated by the federal government.
In one of four appeals accepted Friday, justices had been asked to decide whether lawsuits that accuse cigarette-makers of wrongdoing can be shifted out of state court and into federal court, under a special provision.
That's what happened in Arkansas, where Philip Morris was sued in a class-action case claiming the company violated state law in marketing its "light" cigarettes. The suit claimed the cigarettes were more dangerous than the company advertised. Tobacco companies have faced similar suits around the country.
The suit covered people who used Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights.
The tobacco company sought to have the case moved into federal court under a "federal officer" provision allowing suits against federal officials to be kept out of state courts.
Federal courts are more desirable to corporations facing lawsuits, in part because state juries in some parts of the country are considered more likely to return large damage awards.
The company contends its marketing of cigarettes under the regulation of the Federal Trade Commission made it a "person acting under" a federal officer.
Philip Morris lawyers said the commission "exercised unprecedented detailed and direct control" over things like cigarette advertising.
David Frederick, the Washington attorney representing those who sued, said the decision would hurt state authority to ensure its citizens are protected under its own laws.
"FTC regulation of light cigarettes is anything but extraordinary," Frederick wrote.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the commission has exercised comprehensive control over Philip Morris's advertising, a conclusion the Bush administration called "incorrect." Yet the administration said the case does not merit Supreme Court review, the decision's impact is "entirely unclear" and the more appropriate course would be to allow the issue to play out in the lower courts.
Philip Morris is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group. Altria Group's former name was Philip Morris Companies.
The case is Watson v. Philip Morris Cos. Inc, 05-1284.
The other cases, all expected to be argued in April, are:
*Review of an appeals court ruling setting aside the death sentence of Cal Coburn Brown, convicted in a 1991 murder in Washington state, because a potential juror was excused after expressing equivocal views about the death penalty.
*A controversy about attorneys' fees in a lawsuit over whether nude performers could form a peace symbol in a Florida park.
*A question of which federal court taxpayers must go to when protesting certain decisions by the Internal Revenue Service.
Reader Comments (No comments posted.)
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsibility of their authors. The Morning News does not review comments before their publication, nor do we guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by our comment policy. If you see a comment that violates our policy, please notify the web editor.
Not already registered?
