The Supreme Court will not hear an appeal by tobacco companies over graphic cigarette label warnings

The US Supreme Court declined on Monday to rule on whether federally mandated warnings on cigarette packages that clearly show the health risks of smoking violate the free speech rights of tobacco companies who object to the labels.

The justices rejected an appeal by RJ Reynolds and other tobacco companies of a lower court ruling that found that a set of health warnings required by the US Food and Drug Administration do not violate companies’ rights under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The action of the judges refers to the standing of the decision of the lower court.

This law was adopted by the agency in 2020 during the first administration of President Donald Trump. The FDA requires that warnings about the dangers of smoking appear on the top 50% of cigarette packages and the top 20% of advertisements. The regulation is technically in effect, but the FDA has generally refrained from enforcing it amid legal challenges.

The set of 11 warnings includes pictures of feet with toes cut off, a baby whose fetus is still standing, and a woman with a large lump on her neck caused by cancer, along with written descriptions of various health risks.

RJ Reynolds, part of British American Tobacco; ITG Brands, part of Imperial Brands; Liggett, part of the Vector Group; and other tobacco companies sued in 2020 to challenge the warning labels.

The companies said, among other things, that the health warnings violate their free speech rights by forcing companies to endorse the US government’s anti-smoking message with images that misrepresent or exaggerate the health effects of smoking.

The smoking rate in the US has fallen dramatically over the past six decades, from 42.6% of American adults in 1965 to 11.6% in 2022, according to the American Lung Association. But, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, smoking still causes more than 480,000 deaths a year.

The FDA said the warnings were justified by the US government’s interest in promoting greater understanding of the health risks from smoking, and reducing confusion and deception. The agency argues that pictorial warnings were needed because text-only warnings have failed to deter youth from smoking.

US District Judge J. Campbell Barker in Tyler, Texas, in 2022 blocked the ordinance, finding that graphic warnings violated First Amendment protections.

But the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans in March found that the challenged warnings were “true and uncontroversial,” thus satisfying the due process standard under the First Amendment. This caused the tobacco companies to appeal to the Supreme Court.

RJ Reynolds declined to comment Monday on the court’s decision to deny the appeal.

In a separate case involving the FDA, the Supreme Court on 2 Dec. will hear arguments about the agency’s denial of applications to sell flavored vape products.

-John Kruzel, Reuters