Rutgers Tobacco & Nicotine Expert Available to Discuss Supreme Court Order on Graphic Cigarette Warnings

Kevin Schroth from the Rutgers Institute for Nicotine & Tobacco Studies is available to discuss the Supreme Court’s November 25 decision rejecting RJ Reynolds’ appeal in its fight against graphic cigarette warnings. By declining to hear RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA, the Court effectively upheld a Fifth Circuit ruling that supports the FDA’s requirement for cigarette packs to display stark visual warnings about smoking’s health risks. While RJ Reynolds had claimed these warnings violated their First Amendment rights, the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene marks a significant victory for public health advocates. The case will return to a Texas federal district court to resolve one remaining technical issue under the Administrative Procedure Act, but this is unlikely to derail the FDA’s warning label mandate.

Journalists writing about the topic can use any or all of the following quote or email to schedule an interview.

Schroth: “Declining to accept an appeal might not seem monumental, but this was a huge hurdle for the FDA. To be clear, the U.S. is lagging behind the rest of the world. More than 125 countries require graphic warnings on packs of cigarettes. Congress passed a law calling for these warnings in 2009, which would cover 50% of the front and back of cigarette packs.

But the tobacco industry has been winning court cases on this issue ever since, and the industry’s most potent weapon is the First Amendment. Our country’s cherished protection of speech has been weaponized by tobacco companies, who argued the FDA is infringing on their right to communicate their brand information for deadly products to their customers.

After winning favorable decisions in 2011, 2012, and 2020, the industry’s winning streak came to an end in March 2024 when the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a well-reasoned decision upholding the FDA’s warnings as factually accurate and non-controversial. This surprised many, considering the industry strategically selected a court with a reputation for striking down government regulations. Similarly, when this was appealed to the Supreme Court, a Court that has been hostile recently to public health and administrative agencies, there was reason to fear the Court would intervene.

The case is not over, but the remaining hurdles look minor compared to the rearview mirror.”