Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly Case Brief

Summary of Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001)

Facts: 1998 Mass. and 40 other states settled tobacco claims with manufacturers. MA enacted consumer protection Regs restricting Tobacco Advertising and Sales Practices to stop recruitment of children as new customers. The Regs apply to a broader scope than the settlement and reach Advertising, Sales Practices, and members of tobacco industry not covered by settlement. Restrict outdoor Advertising, Pt of Sale Ads, Retail Sales Transactions, Mail Transactions, promotions, and sampling and labels for cigars.

Issue(s): Whether regulations targeting specific cigarette advertising and sales practices violate the 1st Amendment?

Holding: Yes, Atty Gen failed to show outdoor ad Regs were no more extensive than necessary to advance ST int. Pt of Sale Reg fail both 3 and 4 prongs.

Procedure: Pet, group of tobacco retailers and manufacturers filed suit. D. Ct held Reg valid and enforceable. Ct of App Affirmed in part (do not violate First Amend) and Reversed in Part (St Reg not pre-empted by fed law). U.S.S.Ct. Reversed (State outdoor and Pt of Sale Reg pre-empted). Remand is inappropriate b.c St had a chance to prove.

Rule(s): 1st

Rationale: No need to disregard Central’s test, but only the last two steps are at issue here.

3) Relationship btwn St Int and Means identified to advance that interest. 4) Rble Fit btwn the Legis’s Ends and the Means Chosen to reach those ends–narrowly tailored to achieve goal.

Outdoor Ad Regs.: Ample support for underage use, but the link btwn Reg Ads to combat that use is speculative and remote. There is no Rble Fit b/c broad sweep of the Regs show a lack of consideration for the costs and benefits assoc’d w/ burden on speech. The ban affects a subst’l geographical area of the major cities. “Outdoor" includes ads inside stores if visible from outside. Any size of “Advertising" is restricted and the term itself include oral statements. Too broad to be considered N/T.

Pt of Sale: St goal of preventing minors from use and curb demand by limiting exposure to kids. A 5 ft rule does not advance that Goal b/c kids can look up and not all kids are under 5 ft tall. This Reg is not Reg of communicative Conduct requiring more scrutiny under O’Brien b/c MA 5 ft Reg attempts to directly Reg communicative impact of indoor Ads–Reg is related to expression. Yet, this Reg is not Rble Fit and is invalid.

Sales Practice: Reg bar the use of service displays and place product out of reach to all customers. MA Sales Practice Regs hit conduct that may have a communicative element, but MA’s reasons are unrelated to the communication of ideas. MA has a Subst’l Int and restricting the unattended displays of tobacco products is a narrowly tailored means of reaching that goal.

Pl’s A: Central should be discarded and use Strict Scrutiny. Outdoor Regs do not satisfy 3 Pt and State cannot prove link btwn tobacco use and advertising that would alleviate underage use. B/c each cigar brand is unique, customers need to handle and compare the products B4 purchase.

Copyright © 2001-2012 4LawSchool.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy HotChalk Partner