Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.

Background

This case was brought by the son and executor of Rose Cipollone, who smoked for decades and died of lung cancer. He sued major cigarette makers under New Jersey law for design defects, failure to warn, breach of express warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation, and conspiracy to hide health risks. The dispute centers on two federal laws from 1965 and 1969 that required package warnings and restricted state actions about cigarette labeling and advertising.

Reasoning

The Court’s main question was whether those federal laws prevent state-law lawsuits. The Justices read the 1965 law narrowly and held it did not pre-empt state damages actions. The 1969 law used broader language, and the Court read that language to bar state “requirements or prohibitions” about smoking and health that are “imposed under State law with respect to the advertising or promotion” of cigarettes. Applying that test, claims that would force different or additional warnings in advertising or promotions are pre-empted, while claims based on other conduct are not.

Real world impact

As a result, state courts may still hear claims for express warranty, intentional fraud or misrepresentation, and conspiracy based on non-advertising conduct. But failure-to-warn claims and claims that seek to neutralize federally required warnings are blocked to the extent they depend on advertising or promotion after the 1969 law. The case was therefore reversed in part, affirmed in part, and sent back to lower courts for further proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices disagreed about how broadly to read the 1969 law. Justice Blackmun would have rejected pre-emption of these claims; Justice Scalia argued for a broader federal bar on state suits.