The legal battle over graphic labels on cigarette packages edged closer to the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, as a federal appellate court declined to reconsider its decision that found the labels unconstitutional.
Since its decision is in conflict with one rendered in March by another federal appellate court, it raises the possibility that the high court may accept review of the cases.
The U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia on Wednesday denied, without explanation, a request by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reconsider an August opinion by a three-judge panel that struck down the graphic cigarette warnings.
This means the government has 90 days to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The D.C. federal appellate court’s decision “was wrong on the science and wrong on the law,” said Mr. Myers, noting that “strong scientific evidence from around the world” indicates that graphic warnings on cigarette packages and advertising inform consumers about health risks of smoking, discourage children from smoking and motivate smokers to quit.
Moreover, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit “upheld the graphic warning-labels requirement enacted by Congress in 2009,” Mr. Myers said. “The split legal decisions compel the Supreme Court to settle the issue.”
Cigarette packages have carried government warning labels since 1965. The 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act empowered the FDA to update the labels.
After months of development, the FDA revealed its plan to require cigarette makers to use, in rotation, one of nine graphic health warnings on the entire top halves of their cigarette packages and 20 percent of their advertising spaces.
The images included diseased lungs, a human cadaver and an infant inhaling cigarette smoke, and words like “Smoking can kill you.” A hotline, 1-800-QUIT-NOW, was also supposed to have been added to packages and advertisements by this September.
In the District, a federal judge and federal appellate court both ruled that the FDA labeling scheme was unconstitutional as it compelled specific kinds of commercial speech. This meant the courts agreed with the tobacco companies, which argued that they were being forced to be an “unwilling mouthpiece” for the federal government’s antismoking messages.
Lawyers for the FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services countered that its nine warnings and images were based on science, and offered essential and legitimate public-health messages.
In a separate case, the FDA’s arguments received a more favorable response from a federal judge in Kentucky and a three-judge appellate panel in Cincinnati.
Large, graphic cigarette-warning labels “are reasonably related to the government’s interest in preventing consumer deception and are therefore constitutional,” the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in March.View Entire Story
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Cheryl Wetzstein covers family and social issues as a national reporter for The Washington Times. She has been a reporter for three decades, working in New York City and Washington, D.C. Since joining The Washington Times in 1985, she has been a features writer, environmental and consumer affairs reporter, and assistant business editor. Beginning in 1994, Mrs. Wetzstein worked exclusively ...
Independent voices from the TWT Communities
A round eye’s guide into the Chinese world.
This column will cover anything that has anything remotely to do with the game of baseball, from the game itself to mid-summer trades to offseason moves.
Great discoveries in the world of restaurants and chefs fulfill the quest for delicious food and cooking.
Television commentary, reviews, news and nonstop DVR catch-up by Lisa King Doloff and friends.
World's Ugliest Dog Contest
Spelling Bee finale
Marines train Afghan soldiers
Rolling Thunder 2013
Benghazi: The anatomy of a scandal