[C-U Smokefree] Tobacco Industry Litigation

[Theotskl at aol.com]

FYI.

Cheers,
T. Tsoukalas

This paper is especially relevant in light of today's win by Tacoma County
Washington in defending it smokefree ordinance against claims of implied
preemption.  It shows how important it is for communities to appeal trial
court losses.

Tobacco industry litigation to deter local public health ordinances: the
industry usually loses in court

M L Nixon, L Mahmoud and S A Glantz

Read the full article at 
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/1/65

Background: The tobacco industry uses claims of state preemption or
violations of the US Constitution in litigation to overturn local tobacco
control ordinances.

Methods: Collection of lawsuits filed or threatened against local
governments in the USA; review of previously secret tobacco industry
documents; interviews with key informants.

Results: The industry is most likely to prevail when a court holds that
there is explicit preemption language by the state legislature to
exclusively regulate tobacco. The industry has a much weaker record on
claims of implied preemption and has lost all challenges brought under
equal protection claims in the cases we located. Although the tobacco
industry is willing to spend substantial amounts of money on these
lawsuits, it never won on constitutional equal protection grounds and lost
or dropped 60% (16/27) of the cases it brought claiming implied state
preemption.

Conclusions: Municipalities should continue to pass ordinances and be
prepared to defend them against claims of implied preemption or on
constitutional grounds. If the ordinance is properly prepared they will
likely prevail. Health advocates should be prepared to assist in this process.