Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of tobcontTobacco ControlVisit this articleSubmit a manuscriptReceive email alertsContact usBMJ
Tob Control. 2004 March; 13(1): 65–73.
PMCID: PMC1747817

Tobacco industry litigation to deter local public health ordinances: the industry usually loses in court


Background: The tobacco industry uses claims of state preemption or violations of the US Constitution in litigation to overturn local tobacco control ordinances.

Methods: Collection of lawsuits filed or threatened against local governments in the USA; review of previously secret tobacco industry documents; interviews with key informants.

Results: The industry is most likely to prevail when a court holds that there is explicit preemption language by the state legislature to exclusively regulate tobacco. The industry has a much weaker record on claims of implied preemption and has lost all challenges brought under equal protection claims in the cases we located. Although the tobacco industry is willing to spend substantial amounts of money on these lawsuits, it never won on constitutional equal protection grounds and lost or dropped 60% (16/27) of the cases it brought claiming implied state preemption.

Conclusions: Municipalities should continue to pass ordinances and be prepared to defend them against claims of implied preemption or on constitutional grounds. If the ordinance is properly prepared they will likely prevail. Health advocates should be prepared to assist in this process.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (184K).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Samuels B, Glantz SA. The politics of local tobacco control. JAMA. 1991 Oct 16;266(15):2110–2117. [PubMed]
  • Traynor MP, Begay ME, Glantz SA. New tobacco industry strategy to prevent local tobacco control. JAMA. 1993 Jul 28;270(4):479–486. [PubMed]
  • Dearlove JV, Bialous SA, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry manipulation of the hospitality industry to maintain smoking in public places. Tob Control. 2002 Jun;11(2):94–104. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Dearlove Joanna V, Glantz Stanton A. Boards of Health as venues for clean indoor air policy making. Am J Public Health. 2002 Feb;92(2):257–265. [PubMed]
  • Ritch WA, Begay ME. Strange bedfellows: the history of collaboration between the Massachusetts Restaurant Association and the tobacco industry. Am J Public Health. 2001 Apr;91(4):598–603. [PubMed]
  • Siegel M, Carol J, Jordan J, Hobart R, Schoenmarklin S, DuMelle F, Fisher P. Preemption in tobacco control. Review of an emerging public health problem. JAMA. 1997 Sep 10;278(10):858–863. [PubMed]
  • Malone RE, Balbach ED. Tobacco industry documents: treasure trove or quagmire? Tob Control. 2000 Sep;9(3):334–338. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Scollo M, Lal A, Hyland A, Glantz S. Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry. Tob Control. 2003 Mar;12(1):13–20. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Glantz SA, Smith LR. The effect of ordinances requiring smoke-free restaurants on restaurant sales. Am J Public Health. 1994 Jul;84(7):1081–1085. [PubMed]
  • Fichtenberg Caroline M, Glantz Stanton A. Effect of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behaviour: systematic review. BMJ. 2002 Jul 27;325(7357):188–188. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Bialous SA, Fox BJ, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry allegations of "illegal lobbying" and state tobacco control. Am J Public Health. 2001 Jan;91(1):62–67. [PubMed]
  • Leistikow BN, Martin DC, Milano CE. Fire injuries, disasters, and costs from cigarettes and cigarette lights: a global overview. Prev Med. 2000 Aug;31(2 Pt 1):91–99. [PubMed]

Articles from Tobacco Control are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group