Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (00-596) and Altadis U.S.A., Inc. v. Reilly (00-597) (consol.) (Argued April 25)

Issue: Tobacco Advertising Restrictions
Do Massachusetts' regulations violate tobacco companies’ First Amendment right to free commercial speech?

Case: The Supreme Court has previously held that commercial speech—speech that advertises a product or service for profit—is entitled to some protection under the First Amendment, but not so much as noncommercial speech. In this case, the Massachusetts Attorney General issued regulations that (1) banned most outside tobacco advertising within 1,000 feet of elementary or secondary schools, public playgrounds, or public parks with a playground by permitting only so-called "tombstone" signs-black-and-white signs that state: "Tobacco products sold here"; (2) required warning labels on cigar packaging; and (3) required for all in-store tobacco advertising to be placed at least 5 feet high (so as not to be in children's direct line of vision).

The tobacco companies are now asking the Supreme Court to strike down these restrictions, contending not only that they are "preempted" by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, but also that they violate the companies' free-speech rights. The companies argue that the restrictions are actually content based because, for example, they prohibit outdoor ads that promote tobacco products but allow ads that discourage tobacco use.

Read about Massachusetts' antitobacco campaign in the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Update.

Read the First Amendment.

Read how the First Circuit Court of Appeals decided that Massachusetts's decision to ban most outside tobacco advertising did not violate the First Amendment.

Back to 2000–2001 Cases