HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Nixon, M L Articles by Glantz, S A Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Nixon, M L Articles by Glantz, S A

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

Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA

Correspondence to:
Stanton A Glantz
PhD, Box 1390, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143-1390, USA; glantz{at}medicine.ucsf.edu

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.

Keywords: tobacco control; litigation; secondhand smoke; youth access; preemption

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. C. O'Connor, A. MacNeil, J. F. Chriqui, M. Tynan, H. Bates, and S. K. S. Eidson Preemption of local smoke-free air ordinances: the implications of judicial opinions for meeting national health objectives. J. Law Med. Ethics, June 1, 2008; 36(2): 403 - 412. [PDF]

				E. M Sebrie and S. A Glantz "Accommodating" smoke-free policies: tobacco industry's Courtesy of Choice programme in Latin America Tob. Control, October 1, 2007; 16(5): e6 - e6. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J K Ibrahim and S. A Glantz Tobacco industry litigation strategies to oppose tobacco control media campaigns Tob. Control, February 1, 2006; 15(1): 50 - 58. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]