Supreme Court upholds California ban on flavored cigarettes

[NewYorkExpress]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/12/politics/flavored-cigarettes-california-ban-supreme-court/index.html

The Supreme Court on Monday denied a request from tobacco company R.J. Reynolds to challenge a California law that bans the sale of flavored cigarettes.

There were no noted dissents.

The company, which makes menthol cigarettes, argued the state law conflicts with a federal law called the Tobacco Control Act that gives the federal Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate the sale of cigarettes.

The ban is set to go into effect December 21, and the tobacco company said that without the Supreme Court’s intervention it would be barred from selling its menthol cigarettes – which make up approximately one-third of the cigarette market – in one of the nation’s largest markets.

I admit to being mildly surprised one of the conservatives (maybe Thomas) didn't put in a dissent of some kind here, actually.

[Donerail]

Wrong to phrase this as "upholds." This is a denial of a request for an injunction, not a ruling on the merits.

I admit to being mildly surprised one of the conservatives (maybe Thomas) didn't put in a dissent of some kind here, actually.

You expected the black man to issue a dissent in the menthols case? Jesus Christ.

[NewYorkExpress]

Wrong to phrase this as "upholds." This is a denial of a request for an injunction, not a ruling on the merits.

I admit to being mildly surprised one of the conservatives (maybe Thomas) didn't put in a dissent of some kind here, actually.

You expected the black man to issue a dissent in the menthols case? Jesus Christ.

Clarence Thomas has shown he doesn't really care about optics at all, as does Alito. They'd be the two I'd be looking at for a dissent in this case.

I used upholds here because I think this is likely where the court would line up (not including a dissent from Thomas or Alito or both) if the case made it to the full court on the merits.

[Ferguson97]

Sounds like the correct ruling. Whether you agree with the law or not, I don't see why California wouldn't have the authority to ban it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What was RJ Reynolds argument even?

[NewYorkExpress]

What was RJ Reynolds argument even?

Apparently Federalism in reverse (i.e Federal law covers this, so it trumps state law).

[Tintrlvr]

What was RJ Reynolds argument even?

Field preemption (federal regulation of tobacco preempts state law from banning tobacco products). They and other tobacco industry entities have used this line of argument and lost in federal court multiple times before, which presumably is why none of the Justices bothered dissenting here. They view the issue as closed.

Field preemption is a touchy subject generally, and, while conservative judges sometimes support it opportunistically (such as in certain areas of environmental law or workplace safety), they're not very comfortable with it generally since it inherently places federal law ahead of state law, not something in line with most conservative judicial philosophies.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What was RJ Reynolds argument even?

Field preemption (federal regulation of tobacco preempts state law from banning tobacco products). They and other tobacco industry entities have used this line of argument and lost in federal court multiple times before, which presumably is why none of the Justices bothered dissenting here. They view the issue as closed.

Field preemption is a touchy subject generally, and, while conservative judges sometimes support it opportunistically (such as in certain areas of environmental law or workplace safety), they're not very comfortable with it generally since it inherently places federal law ahead of state law, not something in line with most conservative judicial philosophies.

Yeah no way I can possibly see five justices signing off on that, Gorsuch is an obvious no and Kavanaugh, Roberts and ACB all seem unlikely.

[Vosem]

Unfortunately I don’t see a way to argue that this doesn’t fall within the scope of state police powers, though of course it’s always bad when a government decides to ban something merely because it is dangerous and for no other reason.

[darklordoftech]

What was RJ Reynolds argument even?

“States can’t do anything that there isn’t a federal law authorizing them to do.”

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What was RJ Reynolds argument even?

Apparently Federalism in reverse (i.e Federal law covers this, so it trumps state law).

And you expected Clarence Thomas to be receptive to this?!

[NewYorkExpress]

What was RJ Reynolds argument even?

Apparently Federalism in reverse (i.e Federal law covers this, so it trumps state law).

And you expected Clarence Thomas to be receptive to this?!

Clarence Thomas probably would have written a very narrow dissent (maybe even limiting it to this case only) if he wrote one. Alito would have written a much broader dissent here.

[Skill and Chance]

What was RJ Reynolds argument even?

Field preemption (federal regulation of tobacco preempts state law from banning tobacco products). They and other tobacco industry entities have used this line of argument and lost in federal court multiple times before, which presumably is why none of the Justices bothered dissenting here. They view the issue as closed.

Field preemption is a touchy subject generally, and, while conservative judges sometimes support it opportunistically (such as in certain areas of environmental law or workplace safety), they're not very comfortable with it generally since it inherently places federal law ahead of state law, not something in line with most conservative judicial philosophies.

Yeah no way I can possibly see five justices signing off on that, Gorsuch is an obvious no and Kavanaugh, Roberts and ACB all seem unlikely.

Yes, there's just no way someone as reverent of state law as Thomas is going to bite on this. 

Also, this interpretation would gut Dobbs!