Case: 20-55930, 05/14/2021, ID: 12113215, DktEntry: 28, Page 1 of 38
`
`No. 20-55930
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`____________________
`
`R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY; AMERICAN SNUFF COMPANY;
`AND SANTA FE NATURAL TOBACCO COMPANY,
`Plaintiffs–Appellants,
`
`V.
`COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BOARD OF
`SUPERVISORS; AND HILDA L. SOLIS, MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS, SHEILA
`KUEHL, JANICE HAHN, AND KATHRYN BARGER, EACH IN HIS OR HER
`OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
`Defendants–Appellees.
`____________________
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Central District of California
`No. 2:20-cv-4880
`The Honorable Dale S. Fischer, District Judge
`____________________
`
`AMICUS BRIEF OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES
`____________________
`
`Rob Bonta
`Attorney General of California
`Renu R. George
`Senior Assistant Attorney General
`Nicholas M. Wellington
`James V. Hart
`Supervising Deputy Attorneys General
`Peter F. Nascenzi
`Deputy Attorney General
`STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
`1300 I Street, Suite 125
`P.O. Box 944255
`Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
`(916) 210-7805
`Peter.Nascenzi@doj.ca.gov
`
` May 14, 2021
`
`

`

`Case: 20-55930, 05/14/2021, ID: 12113215, DktEntry: 28, Page 2 of 38
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Interest of Amicus Curiae ....................................................................................... 1
`Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3
`Argument ................................................................................................................ 5
`I.
`History of Tobacco Regulation in the United States ...................................... 6
`A.
`The Beginning of Contemporary Tobacco Regulation ........................ 6
`B. A Shift Toward Youth Prevention ....................................................... 8
`C.
`1994 Congressional Hearings and the State and Federal
`Responses ......................................................................................... 12
`The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of
`2009 .................................................................................................. 15
`The Context of Tobacco Regulation Makes Clear that Flavor Bans Fit
`Squarely Within the States’ Authority ......................................................... 17
`Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 28
`
`D.
`
`II.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 20-55930, 05/14/2021, ID: 12113215, DktEntry: 28, Page 3 of 38
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`Austin v. Tennessee
`179 U.S. 343 (1900) ........................................................................................... 6
`
`Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Mississippi
`456 U.S. 742 (1982) ........................................................................................... 1
`
`Food and Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
`Corp.
`529 U.S. 120 (2000) ..................................................................................... 6, 13
`
`Independents Gas & Service Stations Assocciations v. City of Chicago
`112 F. Supp. 3d 749 (N.D. Ill. 2015) .................................................................. 3
`
`Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly
`533 U.S. 525 (2001) ................................................................................... 12, 16
`
`National Association of Tobacco Outlets, Inc. v. City of Providence
`731 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2013) ................................................................................ 3
`
`Neighborhood Market Association v. County of San Diego
`Case No.: 20-CV-1124 JLS (WVG), 2021 WL 1174784 (S.D. Cal.
`Mar. 29, 2021) ................................................................................................... 4
`
`New Hampshire Motor Transport Association v. Rowe
`448 F.3d 66 (1st Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 11
`
`R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. City of Edina
`482 F. Supp. 3d 875 (D. Minn. 2020)................................................................. 3
`
`R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. County of San Diego
`Case No.: 20-CV-1290 JLS (WVG), 2021 WL 1174787 (S.D. Cal.
`Mar. 29, 2021) ................................................................................................... 3
`
`Smith v. Turner
`48 U.S. (7 Ho.) 283 (1849) .............................................................................. 22
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 20-55930, 05/14/2021, ID: 12113215, DktEntry: 28, Page 4 of 38
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Manufacturing Co. v. City of New York
`708 F.3d 428 (2d Cir. 2013) ............................................................................... 3
`STATUTES
`15 U.S.C.
`§ 376a .............................................................................................................. 25
`§ 378 ................................................................................................................ 25
`§ 1331 ................................................................................................................ 7
`§ 1334 (1970)..................................................................................................... 7
`21 U.S.C. § 331 .................................................................................................... 26
`42 U.S.C. § 300x-26 ............................................................................................. 11
`Act of Aug. 11, 1995, ch. 415, 1995 Cal. Stat. 2395 ............................................. 11
`Act of Aug. 16, 2000, ch. 284, 2000 N.Y. Laws 2928 ........................................... 14
`Act of Aug. 28, 2020 (“S.B. 793”), ch. 34, 2020 Cal. Stat. 1743 ............................. 2
`Alcohol and Drug Abuse Amendments of 1983
`Pub. L. No. 98-24, 97 Stat. 175 .......................................................................... 7
`sec. 2, § 505 ....................................................................................................... 8
`
`Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration
`Reorganization Act
`Pub. L. No. 102-321, 106 Stat. 323 (1992) ....................................................... 11
`sec. 201, § 1926 ............................................................................................... 11
`Cal. Health & Safety Code
`§ 14955 (2007)................................................................................................. 25
`§ 118950 .......................................................................................................... 11
`Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code
`§ 30122 ............................................................................................................ 10
`§ 30123 ............................................................................................................ 22
`§ 30165.1 ......................................................................................................... 15
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 20-55930, 05/14/2021, ID: 12113215, DktEntry: 28, Page 5 of 38
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`California Children and Families First Act of 1998, Proposition 10,
`1998 Cal. Stat. A-287....................................................................................... 14
`California Cigarette Fire Safety and Firefighter Protection Act of
`2005, ch. 633, 2005 Cal. Stat. 4830.................................................................. 14
`Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act of 2003, ch. 890,
`2003 Cal. Stat. 6496 ......................................................................................... 14
`Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986,
`Pub. L. No. 99-252, 100 Stat. 30 .................................................................... 7, 8
`Comprehensive Smoking Education Act of 1984
`Pub. L. No. 98-474, 98 Stat. 2200 ...................................................................... 7
`§ 3 ...................................................................................................................... 8
`sec. 4, § 4 ........................................................................................................... 8
`Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009
`Pub. L. No. 111-31, 123 Stat. 1776 .......................................................... 1, 3, 15
`§ 3 .............................................................................................................. 20, 21
`§ 202 ................................................................................................................ 16
`§ 203 .......................................................................................................... 16, 19
`§ 902 ................................................................................................................ 26
`§ 910 ................................................................................................................ 20
`§ 911 ................................................................................................................ 16
`§ 916 .........................................................................................................passim
`Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act
`Pub. L. No. 89-92, 79 Stat. 282 (1965) .............................................................. 7
`Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 138.140 (West) ................................................................... 22
`Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-154,
`124 Stat. 1087 .................................................................................................. 25
`Preventing Online Sales of E-Cigarettes to Children Act, Pub. L.
`No. 116-260, div. FF, tit. VI, § 602, 134 Stat. 3136 (2021) .............................. 25
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 20-55930, 05/14/2021, ID: 12113215, DktEntry: 28, Page 6 of 38
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969
`Pub. L. No. 91-222, 84 Stat. 87 .......................................................................... 7
`sec. 2, § 6 ........................................................................................................... 7
`
`Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement (“STAKE”) Act, ch. 685,
`2002 Cal. Stat. 4129 ......................................................................................... 13
`Tobacco Tax and Health Protection Act of 1988, Proposition 99,
`1988 Cal. Stat. A-269....................................................................................... 10
`USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, Pub.
`L. No. 109-177, § 121, 120 Stat. 192, 223–24 .................................................. 24
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`21 C.F.R.
`§ 1140.3 ........................................................................................................... 26
`§ 1140.14 ......................................................................................................... 11
`§ 1140.16 ......................................................................................................... 11
`§ 1143.3 ........................................................................................................... 27
`54 ORZECHOWSKI & WALKER, THE TAX BURDEN ON TOBACCO:
`HISTORICAL COMPILATION 2019 (2019)............................................................ 14
`Barry Meier, Remaining States Approve the Pact on Tobacco Suits,
`N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 21, 1998, at A12 .................................................................. 12
`Food and Drug Administration, Enforcement Priorities for Electronic
`Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) (2020) ...................................................... 24
`H.R. Rep. No. 111-58, pt. 1 (2009), as reprinted in
`2009 U.S.C.C.A.N. 468 ................................................................................... 21
`INST. OF MED., NAT’L ACADS. OF SCI., ENDING THE TOBACCO
`PROBLEM: A BLUEPRINT FOR THE NATION (Richard J. Bonnie et al.
`eds., 2007) ................................................................................................... 9, 10
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 20-55930, 05/14/2021, ID: 12113215, DktEntry: 28, Page 7 of 38
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Joseph R. DiFranza et al., RJR Nabisco’s Cartoon Camel Promotes
`Camel Cigarettes to Children, 266 JAMA 3149 (1991) ..................................... 9
`Michael Janofsky, Mississippi Seeks Damages from Tobacco
`Companies, N.Y. TIMES, May 24, 1994, at A12 ............................................... 12
`Order, African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council v.
`United States Department of Health and Human Services
`Case No. 20-cv-04012-KAW (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2020), ECF
`No. 34 .............................................................................................................. 24
`Paul A. Lebel, “Of Deaths Put on by Cunning and Forced Cause”:
`Reality Bites the Tobacco Industry, 38 WM. & MARY L. REV. 605
`(1997) .............................................................................................................. 10
`PETER D. JACOBSON & JEFFREY WASSERMAN, TOBACCO CONTROL
`LAWS: IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT (1997) ....................................... 11
`Press Release, Food and Drug Administration, FDA Commits to
`Evidence-Based Actions Aimed at Saving Lives and Preventing
`Future Generations of Smokers (Apr. 29, 2021) ............................................... 24
`
`PUB. HEALTH SERV., U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH, EDUC. & WELFARE, PUB.
`NO. 1103, SMOKING AND HEALTH: REPORT OF THE ADVISORY
`COMMITTEE TO THE SURGEON GENERAL OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH
`SERVICE (1964) .................................................................................................. 6
`
`Regulation of Tobacco Products (Part 1): Hearings Before the
`Subcomm. on Health & the Env’t, 103d Cong. 628 (1994) ............................... 12
`Robert L. Rabin, Tobacco Control Strategies: Past Efficacy and
`Future Promise, 41 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1721 (2008) ......................................... 10
`U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., THE HEALTH
`CONSEQUENCES OF SMOKING: NICOTINE ADDICTION, A REPORT OF
`THE SURGEON GENERAL (1988) .......................................................................... 9
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 20-55930, 05/14/2021, ID: 12113215, DktEntry: 28, Page 8 of 38
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., REDUCING TOBACCO USE: A
`REPORT OF THE SURGEON GENERAL (2000) ........................................................ 6
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 20-55930, 05/14/2021, ID: 12113215, DktEntry: 28, Page 9 of 38
`
`INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
`“Courts and commentators frequently have recognized that the 50 states serve
`
`as laboratories for the development of new social, economic, and political ideas.”
`
`Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 788 (1982)
`
`(O’Connor, J., concurring in part). In particular, states and their localities have
`
`served as laboratories for the development of new tobacco policy for over three
`
`decades, with many of their innovations eventually becoming federal policy in the
`
`Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 (“Tobacco Control
`
`Act” or “TCA”), Pub. L. No. 111-31, 123 Stat. 1776 (codified at 21 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 387–387u and amending scattered sections of 15 U.S.C. and 21 U.S.C.). For
`
`example, the Tobacco Control Act increased tobacco excise taxes for the purpose
`
`of reducing consumption, removed tobacco products from vending machines, and
`
`prohibited free samples of tobacco products, all of which were implemented in
`
`California and other states before its passage. To preserve the states’ and their
`
`localities’ role as architects of new tobacco policy, Congress included in the TCA a
`
`broad preservation clause that expressly disclaims federal preemption of almost all
`
`state and local authority over tobacco products. See id. § 916(a), 21 U.S.C.
`
`§ 387p(a).
`
`Recognizing that flavored tobacco products drive tobacco use initiation—
`
`especially among youth—states and localities around the country have
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 20-55930, 05/14/2021, ID: 12113215, DktEntry: 28, Page 10 of 38
`
`implemented retail sales prohibitions on flavored tobacco products. In California
`
`alone, at least 71 localities have prohibited the sale of all flavored tobacco products
`
`to consumers. See AM. NONSMOKERS’ RIGHTS FOUND., MUNICIPALITIES
`
`PROHIBITING THE SALE OF FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS (2021).1 The California
`
`Legislature similarly passed, and the Governor signed, a prohibition against retail
`
`sales of flavored tobacco products in 2020. See Act of Aug. 28, 2020 (“S.B. 793”),
`
`ch. 34, 2020 Cal. Stat. 1743 (to be codified at Cal. Health & Safety Code
`
`§ 104559.5). That law is currently subject to a referendum, and will be put to the
`
`voters in California’s November 2022 election. See Press Release, Cal. Sec’y of
`
`State, New Referendum Qualified for California’s November 2022 Ballot (Jan. 22,
`
`2021).2
`
`This appeal implicates all of these public health measures, as well as the
`
`congressionally preserved role of states and localities as tobacco policy innovators.
`
`California has a clear interest in ensuring that it and its political subdivisions, its
`
`elected lawmakers and voters, can exercise their rightful authority to continue to
`
`regulate tobacco within California’s borders. The State of California, by and
`
`1 Available at https://no-smoke.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/flavored-tobacco-
`product-sales.pdf.
`2 Available at https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories
`/2021-news-releases-and-advisories/js21002.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 20-55930, 05/14/2021, ID: 12113215, DktEntry: 28, Page 11 of 38
`
`through California Attorney General Rob Bonta, therefore submits this brief in
`
`support of Appellees.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Appellants’ challenge to the Los Angeles County Ordinance is not unique.
`
`Across the country, plaintiffs—including several of the appellants and attorneys in
`
`this suit—have challenged these state and local “flavor bans,” claiming them to be
`
`preempted by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009
`
`(“Tobacco Control Act” or “TCA”), Pub. L. No. 111-31, 123 Stat. 1776 (codified
`
`at 21 U.S.C. §§ 387–387u and amending scattered sections of 15 U.S.C. and
`
`21 U.S.C.). Unable to convince local and state lawmakers that their flavored
`
`tobacco products should remain stocked on local shelves, see, e.g., Appellants’
`
`Br. 11–12 (citing tobacco industry position papers, including Appellants’ own),
`
`Appellants have turned to the courts. But in every instance, courts have upheld
`
`restrictions on the sale of flavored tobacco products, finding them constitutional
`
`and consonant with the TCA. See U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Mfg. Co. v. City of New
`
`York, 708 F.3d 428, 436 (2d Cir. 2013); Nat’l Ass’n of Tobacco Outlets, Inc. v.
`
`City of Providence, 731 F.3d 71, 82–83 (1st Cir. 2013); Indeps. Gas & Serv.
`
`Stations Ass’ns v. City of Chicago, 112 F. Supp. 3d 749, 754 (N.D. Ill. 2015); R.J.
`
`Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. City of Edina, 482 F. Supp. 3d 875, 886 (D. Minn. 2020),
`
`appeal docketed, No. 20-2852 (8th Cir. Sept. 4, 2020); R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 20-55930, 05/14/2021, ID: 12113215, DktEntry: 28, Page 12 of 38
`
`v. County of San Diego, Case No.: 20-CV-1290 JLS (WVG), 2021 WL 1174787,
`
`at *11 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2021), appeal docketed, No. 21-55348 (9th Cir. Apr. 13,
`
`2021); Neighborhood Market Ass’n v. County of San Diego, Case No.: 20-CV-
`
`1124 JLS (WVG), 2021 WL 1174784, at *11 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2021).
`
`As these courts have recognized, the TCA expressly preserves state and local
`
`authority to implement flavored product sales restrictions like the one challenged
`
`here. Instead of implementing a federal tobacco regime that “cleared the field” of
`
`state and local regulation, Congress installed the U.S. Food and Drug
`
`Administration (“FDA”) as an additional regulator alongside state, local, and tribal
`
`entities already active in the tobacco regulatory space. Under the TCA, the FDA
`
`acts as the initial gatekeeper, determining which manufactured tobacco products
`
`may enter the United States in the first instance, while leaving downstream
`
`regulation—including the authority to tax or prohibit such tobacco products
`
`altogether—to the states and their localities. This accords with the historical
`
`background upon which Congress enacted the TCA, where states and localities
`
`took a lead role in tobacco regulation while the federal government confined its
`
`efforts almost exclusively to labeling and advertising restrictions. Congress
`
`retained federal control over labeling and advertising, introduced national
`
`regulation of manufacturing, and otherwise expressly preserved the broad, existing
`
`state and local authority over tobacco products.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 20-55930, 05/14/2021, ID: 12113215, DktEntry: 28, Page 13 of 38
`
`The district court below correctly read the TCA as preserving that authority
`
`and preempting only measures that would necessarily interfere with the FDA’s
`
`new gatekeeping authority and the federal government’s already-established
`
`authority over labeling and advertising. This Court should affirm the district
`
`court’s judgment and uphold Congress’s express preservation of state and local
`
`authority to determine which tobacco products may be sold to consumers within
`
`their jurisdictions.
`
`ARGUMENT
`Congress did not enact the Tobacco Control Act in a vacuum. Instead, it is
`
`part of a decades-long evolution of tobacco regulation, responding to new
`
`revelations about the public health harms of tobacco products and new industry
`
`efforts to mitigate the impact of those revelations on its bottom line. Appellants
`
`argue that the TCA did not build upon existing state tobacco regulatory
`
`foundations, it displaced them. But the precisely worded delineation between state
`
`and federal authority over tobacco products in section 916 of the TCA belies that
`
`argument. And apart from the plain text of the statute, the historical context in
`
`which the TCA was enacted confirms section 916’s preservation of virtually all
`
`state and local authority to regulate tobacco products—including authority to tax or
`
`prohibit the retail sales of entire categories of tobacco products like flavored
`
`tobacco products.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 20-55930, 05/14/2021, ID: 12113215, DktEntry: 28, Page 14 of 38
`
`I. HISTORY OF TOBACCO REGULATION IN THE UNITED STATES
`A. The Beginning of Contemporary Tobacco Regulation
`Contemporary tobacco regulation in the United States began in 1964, when
`
`the Surgeon General issued a much-publicized report that demonstrated a causal
`
`link between cigarette use and the incidence of various diseases such as lung
`
`cancer and cardiovascular disease.3 See PUB. HEALTH SERV., U.S. DEP’T OF
`
`HEALTH, EDUC. & WELFARE, PUB. NO. 1103, SMOKING AND HEALTH: REPORT OF
`
`THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE SURGEON GENERAL OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH
`
`SERVICE 30 (1964) (“The array of information . . . clearly establishes an
`
`association between cigarette smoking and substantially higher death rates.”). In
`
`response, Congress considered a number of legislative proposals to mitigate
`
`tobacco’s public health harms, including placing tobacco under the jurisdiction of
`
`the FDA. See Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
`
`529 U.S. 120, 147–48 (2000) (describing the introduction of four bills between
`
`1963 and 1965 that would have placed tobacco under FDA authority). Ultimately,
`
`3 Earlier tobacco regulation included some states banning sales of cigarettes
`entirely. See, e.g., Austin v. Tennessee, 179 U.S. 343, 348–49 (1900) (“[W]e think
`it within the province of the legislature to say how far [cigarettes] may be sold, or
`to prohibit their sale entirely . . . .”). Such laws were repealed as cigarette use
`became the predominant form of tobacco use following World War I. See
`generally U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., REDUCING TOBACCO USE: A
`REPORT OF THE SURGEON GENERAL 32 (2000) (tracking the history of state
`cigarette bans).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 20-55930, 05/14/2021, ID: 12113215, DktEntry: 28, Page 15 of 38
`
`Congress decided to take a consumer education approach, requiring health
`
`warnings on cigarette packages and advertising with the Federal Cigarette Labeling
`
`and Advertising Act (“FCLAA”), Pub. L. No. 89-92, 79 Stat. 282 (1965) (codified
`
`as amended at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1331–1340). In doing so, Congress cleared the field of
`
`state regulation “relating to smoking and health” of cigarette labeling or
`
`advertising, 15 U.S.C. § 1334(a)–(b) (1970), in order to avoid “diverse,
`
`nonuniform, and confusing cigarette labeling and advertising regulations with
`
`respect to any relationship between smoking and health,” id. § 1331(2)(B).
`
`In the following decades, Congress passed laws that strengthened and
`
`expanded the FCLAA’s provisions, cementing the federal government’s consumer
`
`education approach to tobacco control.4 These laws adjusted the FCLAA’s
`
`required warnings and expanded Congress’s consumer education efforts. But none
`
`deviated from that consumer education approach. Congress prohibited cigarette
`
`advertising on any mode of transmission regulated by the Federal Communications
`
`Commission, Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969, Pub. L. No. 91-222,
`
`4 See Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969, Pub. L. No. 91-222, 84 Stat.
`87 (amending 15 U.S.C. §§ 1331–1339); Alcohol and Drug Abuse Amendments of
`1983, Pub. L. No. 98-24, 97 Stat. 175 (codified as amended in scattered sections of
`12 U.S.C. and 42 U.S.C.); Comprehensive Smoking Education Act of 1984, Pub.
`L. No. 98-474, 98 Stat. 2200 (amending 15 U.S.C. §§ 1331–1341); Comprehensive
`Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-252, 100 Stat.
`30 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. §§ 4401–4408).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 20-55930, 05/14/2021, ID: 12113215, DktEntry: 28, Page 16 of 38
`
`sec. 2, § 6, 84 Stat. 87, 89 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. § 1335); directed the
`
`U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) to submit tobacco
`
`research reports to Congress, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Amendments of 1983, Pub.
`
`L. No. 98-24, sec. 2, § 505(b)(2), 61 Stat. 175, 178 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 290aa-
`
`4(b)(2) (1988)); codified the Federal Trade Commission’s 1972 expansion of
`
`health warnings to advertising, Comprehensive Smoking Education Act of 1984,
`
`Pub. L. No. 98-474, sec. 4, § 4, 98 Stat. 2200, 2201–03 (amending at 15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1333); created an interagency committee within HHS to coordinate federal and
`
`private efforts to inform the public of the health risks of smoking, id. § 3(b),
`
`98 Stat. at 2201 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. § 1341(b)); and placed
`
`smokeless tobacco under an education-based regulatory regime that mirrored the
`
`one covering cigarettes, see Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education
`
`Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-252, 100 Stat. 30 (codified as amended at
`
`15 U.S.C. §§ 4401–4408).
`
`B. A Shift Toward Youth Prevention
`Congress’s focus on consumer education proved inadequate for two main
`
`reasons. First, researchers developed a greater understanding of nicotine’s
`
`addictive properties. Reviewing scientific literature concerning nicotine, the
`
`Surgeon General released a new report on tobacco in 1988 that concluded the
`
`“pharmacologic and behavioral processes that determine tobacco addiction are
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 20-55930, 05/14/2021, ID: 12113215, DktEntry: 28, Page 17 of 38
`
`similar to those that determine addiction to drugs such as heroin and cocaine.” U.S.
`
`DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., THE HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF SMOKING:
`
`NICOTINE ADDICTION, A REPORT OF THE SURGEON GENERAL 15 (1988). Second, it
`
`became apparent that tobacco companies were purposefully and specifically
`
`marketing cigarettes to youth. For example, Appellant R.J. Reynolds introduced
`
`Joe Camel in 1988, which—“consistent with tobacco industry documents that
`
`indicate that a major function of tobacco advertising is to promote and maintain
`
`tobacco addiction among children”—was “far more successful at marketing Camel
`
`cigarettes to children than to adults.” Joseph R. DiFranza et al., RJR Nabisco’s
`
`Cartoon Camel Promotes Camel Cigarettes to Children, 266 JAMA 3149, 3149
`
`(1991).
`
`These two revelations made it clear that consumers were often becoming
`
`addicted to cigarettes before they were able to appreciate the risks of smoking and
`
`make an informed choice. In response, tobacco control efforts at all levels of
`
`government pivoted toward youth prevention. See INST. OF MED., NAT’L ACADS. OF
`
`SCI., ENDING THE TOBACCO PROBLEM: A BLUEPRINT FOR THE NATION 118 (Richard
`
`J. Bonnie et al. eds., 2007) (“In the early 1990s, . . . national experts on tobacco use
`
`had begun to highlight the importance of smoking among youth. Studies showed
`
`that nearly 90 percent of adult smokers began smoking by the time they were 18
`
`years old . . . .”).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 20-55930, 05/14/2021, ID: 12113215, DktEntry: 28, Page 18 of 38
`
`During this phase of tobacco regulation, the states and their localities led the
`
`way. This “burst of state action began in 1988, when the people of California
`
`passed Proposition 99,” which “increased the excise tax on tobacco from 10 to 35
`
`cents per pack and earmarked 20 percent of the new revenues for a statewide
`
`antismoking campaign.” Id. at 119; see also Tobacco Tax and Health Protection
`
`Act of 1988, Proposition 99, 1988 Cal. Stat. A-269 (codified at Cal. Rev. & Tax.
`
`Code §§ 30121–30130). Unlike past tobacco taxes that were designed to generate
`
`revenue, Proposition 99 “was explicitly billed as a tobacco control measure.”
`
`Robert L. Rabin, Tobacco Control Strategies: Past Efficacy and Future Promise,
`
`41 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1721, 1729 (2008); see also INST. OF MED., supra, at 120
`
`(“[T]he general rule is that a 10 percent increase in the real price reduces . . . the
`
`rate of smoking among youth by 7 percent.”). The measure also earmarked the
`
`revenue it raised for tobacco control, including research and community outreach.
`
`See Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 30122. Continuing the “burst of state action,” and in
`
`light of the measure’s success in reducing smoking rates, Massachusetts and
`
`Arizona enacted similar measures in 1992 and 1994, respectively. See Paul A.
`
`Lebel, “Of Deaths Put on by Cunning and Forced Cause”: Reality Bites the
`
`Tobacco Industry, 38 WM. & MARY L. REV. 605, 636–37 (1997) (book review).
`
`States and localities became laboratories for devising new and effective youth
`
`prevention efforts. For example, by 1994 “at least 30 cities in Minnesota, New
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 20-55930, 05/14/2021, ID: 12113215, DktEntry: 28, Page 19 of 38
`
`York, California, Maryland, New Jersey, and Louisiana ha[d] outlawed the use of
`
`cigarette vending machines.” PETER D. JACOBSON & JEFFREY WASSERMAN,
`
`TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS: IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT 15 (1997). When
`
`public health research showed such laws to be effective in reducing youth access to
`
`cigarettes, see id., other jurisdictions adopted them. Similarly, jurisdictions adopted
`
`prohibitions on free samples of the tobacco industry’s addictive products. See, e.g.,
`
`Act of Aug. 11, 1995, ch. 415, § 6, 1995 Cal. Stat. 2395, 2991–92 (codified as
`
`amended at Cal. Health & Safety Code § 118950). These and other once-local
`
`policy innovations can now be found in federal regulations promulgated under the
`
`TCA. See 21 C.F.R. § 1140.14(a)(3) (vending machines); id. § 1140.16(d) (free
`
`samples).
`
`Congress, too, turned to youth prevention. But its legislative action during
`
`this period deferred to the states for implementation. For example, in 1992, as part
`
`of the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration Reorganization
`
`Act, Pub. L. No. 102-321, 106 Stat. 323 (1992), Congress passed what has become
`
`known as the Synar Amendment, id. sec. 201, § 1926, 106 Stat. at 394–95
`
`(codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 300x-26). This provision provides the states
`
`with grant money in exchange for passing a minimum age law and submitting
`
`reports demonstrating a certain level of enforcement and effectiveness. See
`
`42 U.S.C. § 300x-26; N.H. Motor Transp. Ass’n v. Rowe, 448 F.3d 66, 78 n.12 (1st
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 20-55930, 05/14/2021, ID: 12113215, DktEntry: 28, Page 20 of 38
`
`Cir. 2006) (“The Synar Amendment indicates Congress’[s] intent that the states
`
`take the lead in addressing the underage smoking problem.”).
`
`C.
`
`1994 Congressional Hearings and the State and Federal
`Responses
`Thirty years after the 1964 Surgeon General Report, another seminal event in
`
`tobacco control occurred when Congress called the heads of the major tobacco
`
`companies to testify about the dangers posed by their products. At a congressional
`
`hearing in April 1994, each denied under oath the addictivene