Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly | 533 U.S. 525 (2001)
Every state in America makes it illegal to sell tobacco products to minors. Despite these laws, each day over 2000 adolescents try smoking for the first time. Over 80 percent of adult smokers began the habit before age 18. Believing that the best way to reduce adult smoking is to stop kids from starting in the first place, Massachusetts implemented regulations intended to limit tobacco advertising and promotions targeting minors. In the case of Lorillard Tobacco Company versus Reilly, the tobacco companies challenged those regulations.
Congress regularly enacts legislation addressing tobacco sales and advertising. Among other things, Congress has required warning labels on cigarettes and banned tobacco ads from radio and television. In an attempt to curb the use of tobacco by minors, Massachusetts implemented regulations that banned tobacco billboard advertising within 1000 feet of a school or playground. The regulations also required in-store advertising be at least five feet from the floor and prohibited free promotional samples and self-service displays. Finally, the regulations required retailers to keep tobacco products behind a counter out of the customer’s reach.
Lorillard Tobacco Company and others filed suit in federal district court asserting that the cigarette advertising limitations were preempted by federal law and that the advertising and sales regulations violated the First Amendment.
The district court ruled against Lorillard. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed and found that restrictions on the location of advertising weren’t preempted because they weren’t based on smoking and health. The court concluded that the indoor restrictions didn’t violate the First Amendment under the test from Central Hudson Gas versus Public Service Commission because they were narrowly tailored to advance a substantial governmental interest. The Supreme Court granted cert.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
