{
  "id": "R40639",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R40639",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 349853,
      "date": "2009-06-16",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T02:26:21.369860",
      "title": "The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and Preemption Revisited: An\u00a0Analysis of the Supreme Court Case Altria Group, Inc. v. Good and Current Legislation",
      "summary": "The Supreme Court issued its decision in Altria Group., Inc. v. Good on December 15, 2008. The Court, by a vote of 5-4, held that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) neither expressly nor impliedly preempted state law claims of fraud. In this decision the Court examined the preemptive effect of section 5(b) of the act (15 U.S.C. \u00a71334(b)) with regard to the claim that light or low-tar nicotine descriptors in cigarette advertising violated the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act. The decision resolved a split between the circuits\u2014the First Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the FCLAA did not preempt the plaintiffs\u2019 claim and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, hearing a similar case, ruled that the FCLAA preempted such state-law claims. \nThis report provides an overview of section 5 of the FCLAA and how it was amended in 1969; additionally, it examines the previous Supreme Court cases, Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. and Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, that interpreted the preemptive scope of section 5. Both parties in Good relied on these cases to argue that the FCLAA either preempts or does not preempt state law claims of fraud. This report also discusses the lower court decisions that were issued prior to examining the Court\u2019s decision in Good. Finally, there is a discussion of potential issues that may arise out of the Court\u2019s decision, such as its impact on future litigation and preemption jurisprudence, in addition to the effect that H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, may have upon the Court\u2019s ruling.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40639",
          "sha1": "a69404488f638782978c933640ff407e7ebd7ab1",
          "filename": "files/20090616_R40639_a69404488f638782978c933640ff407e7ebd7ab1.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40639",
          "sha1": "1eddf1a707df1f25034a3fcf61dbe214f14e58c2",
          "filename": "files/20090616_R40639_1eddf1a707df1f25034a3fcf61dbe214f14e58c2.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}