Lorillard tobacco company v reilly 533 u s 525 2001 l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 7

Lorillard Tobacco Company v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001) PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 298 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Lorillard Tobacco Company v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001). What is MA trying to do? Types of Preemption Explicit Implicit How is the United States Supreme Court's preemption analysis similar to a Chevron analysis?. Preemption Language.

Download Presentation

Lorillard Tobacco Company v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Lorillard tobacco company v reilly 533 u s 525 2001 l.jpg

Lorillard Tobacco Company v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001)

  • What is MA trying to do?

  • Types of Preemption

    • Explicit

    • Implicit

  • How is the United States Supreme Court's preemption analysis similar to a Chevron analysis?


Preemption language l.jpg

Preemption Language

  • Congress unequivocally precludes the requirement of any additional statements on cigarette packages beyond those provided in §1333. 15 U. S. C. §1334(a).

  • Congress further precludes States or localities from imposing any requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health with respect to the advertising and promotion of cigarettes. §1334(b).


What did congress intend with the cigarette labeling act l.jpg

What did Congress Intend with the Cigarette Labeling Act?

  • What was MA's defense against preemption?

  • What did the court find was the congressional intent?

    • The context in which Congress crafted the current pre-emption provision leads us to conclude that Congress prohibited state cigarette advertising regulations motivated by concerns about smoking and health.


Justice steven s irony l.jpg

Justice Steven's Irony

  • Justice Stevens finds it ironic that we conclude that "federal law precludes States and localities from protecting children from dangerous products within 1,000 feet of a school," in light of our prior conclusion that the "Federal Government lacks the constitutional authority to impose a similarly-motivated ban" in United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995).

  • Why is this case different?

  • What could the state do?


Smokeless tobacco and cigars l.jpg

Smokeless Tobacco and Cigars

  • Are these covered by the Act?

    • Why?

  • What does the court see as the limitation on state regulation of their advertising?

  • What is the state's justification for limiting advertising near schools?

  • Why was 1000 feet too far?


Actions v speech l.jpg

Actions v. Speech

  • Could the state ban the sale of tobacco to minors?

  • Can it ban the use unattended sales such as vending machines?

  • Can it ban tobacco sales entirely?

  • Why is this different from bans on advertising?

  • Could Congress preempt state bans on tobacco sales?


What should we do about tobacco use l.jpg

What Should We Do About Tobacco Use?

  • What is the public interest?

  • What are the individual liberties issues?

  • Are the other substances people want to use that we ban?

  • Is tobacco different in any physiological, as opposed to political sense?

  • How well do the other bans work?

  • What are the unintended consequences?


  • Login