Bid to shift tobacco cases to US courts denied
Supreme Court ruling a blow to entire industry
WASHINGTON -- In a major blow to tobacco companies, the US Supreme Court yesterday denied tobacco giant
The decision, in a case involving the alleged marketing deception of "light" cigarettes, is expected to affect liability lawsuits against tobacco companies filed in 20 states, including Massachusetts. Some state awards in recent years have been in the billions of dollars, although many of those judgments were later overturned on appeal.
The case stemmed from a class-action lawsuit in Arkansas brought by smokers Lisa Watson and Loretta Lawson. The suit alleges that Altria Group, the corporate owners of Philip Morris USA, violated state advertising laws by portraying Marlboro Light and Cambridge Light cigarette brands as low in tar and nicotine, though tests showed levels of both were dangerously high.
Attorneys for Philip Morris argued that, because the Federal Trade Commission is responsible for regulating the tobacco industry, federal courts should have jurisdiction over the case. The company also argued that because the US government has allowed tobacco companies such as Philip Morris to assume responsibility for tests to determine tar and nicotine levels in cigarettes, the federal court should decide the case.
The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed, but the Supreme Court unanimously reversed that decision.
In the opinion, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote that the high court found no evidence that the federal government had delegated its legal authority allowing the tobacco companies to take over testing for tar and nicotine from the US government.
Breyer pointed out that Philip Morris and other tobacco firms are highly regulated, citing the FTC's rules on "advertising, specifications for testing, requirements about reporting results."
"This is a big loss for the industry," said Edward L. Sweda Jr. , senior attorney for the anti smoking Tobacco Products Liability Project at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston. "If the appeals court ruling had been upheld, it would have basically eliminated state courts as a venue for lawsuits against the tobacco companies."
Sweda said other industries, such as pharmaceutical companies and automakers, could argue that lawsuits against them should move to federal court because of their relationship with federal regulators.
William Ohlemeyer, associate general counsel for Philip Morris, downplayed the Supreme Court's decision as "narrow" and insisted it would not affect the case.
"We have compelling defenses to the Watson claim that have been advanced in state courts," Ohlemeyer said in a statement.
Because the high court has allowed the case to proceed in state court, Sweda said, the ruling "now makes it easier for the plaintiff attorneys to bring these light -cigarette lawsuits against the companies. "
Several analysts said the ruling was largely expected, especially given the questions and comments from justices during oral arguments earlier this year.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for instance, said Philip Morris was serving the consumer, not the US government. "The company is doing it so they can stay in business and market a product, not serve the US government," she said.
Some of the pending cases in 20 states were sidetracked until the Supreme Court ruled in the Watson case.
In Massachusetts, a suit filed by Lori Aspinall and Thomas Geanacopoulos in 1998 is now before the state Superior Court. In 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in a 4- to -3 decision, allowed smokers to proceed with a class-action suit over the marketing of light cigarettes.
The lawsuits involving the marketing of light cigarettes are part of the latest trend of litigation against tobacco companies. Starting in the mid-1990s, aided by damaging internal tobacco company documents, smokers and states won many cases against the companies based on product liability claims.
Thomas Glynn , director of cancer science and trends at the American Cancer Society in Washington, said the high court's verdict yesterday "certainly favors smokers and non smokers alike.
"The main thing is it's going to help the cases pending in state courts move forward, which was in some question before."
Glynn said that the percentage of smokers in the United States has dropped by more than half over the past two generations, but the gains have leveled off in recent years. In the 1960s, 43 percent of American adults smoked. Today, that figure has dropped to 21 percent or 45 million Americans.
Now he is hopeful that several upcoming legal cases will cause smokers to rethink their risky habit. "Whenever litigation occurs, it focuses attention on the issue, which is vitally important," Glynn said. "It does cause people to consider their tobacco use and revisits the whole idea, either for their health or the health of people around them."
John Donnelly can be reached at donnelly@globe.com 
