F.D.A. v Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Decision Date | 21 March 2000 |
Docket Number | 981152 |
Citation | 529 U.S. 120,146 L.Ed.2d 121,120 S.Ct. 1291 |
Parties | FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION et al., Petitioners v. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP. et al.SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., grants the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as the designee of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), the authority to regulate, among other items, "drugs" and "devices," §§321(g)-(h), 393. In 1996, the FDA asserted jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products, concluding that, under the FDCA, nicotine is a "drug" and cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are "devices" that deliver nicotine to the body. Pursuant to this authority, the FDA promulgated regulations governing tobacco products' promotion, labeling, and accessibility to children and adolescents. The FDA found that tobacco use is the Nation's leading cause of premature death, resulting in more than 400,000 deaths annually, and that most adult smokers begin when they are minors. The regulations therefore aim to reduce tobacco use by minors so as to substantially reduce the prevalence of addiction in future generations, and thus the incidence of tobacco-related death and disease. Respondents, a group of tobacco manufacturers, retailers, and advertisers, filed this suit challenging the FDA's regulations. They moved for summary judgment on the ground, inter alia, that the FDA lacked jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products as customarily marketed, that is, without manufacturer claims of therapeutic benefit. The District Court upheld the FDA's authority, but the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that Congress has not granted the FDA jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. The court concluded that construing the FDCA to include tobacco products would lead to several internal inconsistencies in the Act. It also found that evidence external to the FDCA-that the FDA consistently stated before 1995 that it lacked jurisdiction over tobacco, that Congress has enacted several tobacco-specific statutes fully cognizant of the FDA's position, and that Congress has considered and rejected many bills that would have given the agency such authority-confirms this conclusion.
Held: Reading the FDCA as a whole, as well as in conjunction with Congress' subsequent tobacco-specific legislation, it is plain that Congress has not given the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products as customarily marketed. Pp. 8-40.
(a) Because this case involves an agency's construction of a statute it administers, the Court's analysis is governed by Chevron U.S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, under which a reviewing court must first ask whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue, id., at 842. If so, the court must give effect to Congress' unambiguously expressed intent. E.g., id., at 843. If not, the court must defer to the agency's construction of the statute so long as it is permissible. See, e.g., INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 424. In determining whether Congress has specifically addressed the question at issue, the court should not confine itself to examining a particular statutory provision in isolation. Rather, it must place the provision in context, interpreting the statute to create a symmetrical and coherent regulatory scheme. Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 569. In addition, the meaning of one statute may be affected by other Acts, particularly where Congress has spoken subsequently and more specifically to the topic at hand. See, e.g., United States v. Estate of Romani, 523 U.S. 517, 530-531. Finally, the court must be guided to a degree by common sense as to the manner in which Congress is likely to delegate a policy decision of such economic and political magnitude to an administrative agency. Cf. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 512 U.S. 218, 231. Pp. 8-10.
(b) Considering the FDCA as a whole, it is clear that Congress intended to exclude tobacco products from the FDA's jurisdiction. A fundamental precept of the FDCA is that any product regulated by the FDA that remains on the market must be safe and effective for its intended use. See, e.g., §393(b)(2). That is, the potential for inflicting death or physical injury must be offset by the possibility of therapeutic benefit. United States v. Rutherford, 442 U.S. 544, 556. In its rulemaking proceeding, the FDA quite exhaustively documented that tobacco products are unsafe, dangerous, and cause great pain and suffering from illness. These findings logically imply that, if tobacco products were "devices" under the FDCA, the FDA would be required to remove them from the market under the FDCA's misbranding, see, e.g., §331(a), and device classification, see, e.g., §360e(d)(2)(A), provisions. In fact, based on such provisions, the FDA itself has previously asserted that if tobacco products were within its jurisdiction, they would have to be removed from the market because it would be impossible to prove they were safe for their intended use. Congress, however, has foreclosed a ban of such products, choosing instead to create a distinct regulatory scheme focusing on the labeling and advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. Its express policy is to protect commerce and the national economy while informing consumers about any adverse health effects. See 15 U.S.C. § 1331. Thus, an FDA ban would plainly contradict congressional intent. Apparently recognizing this dilemma, the FDA has concluded that tobacco products are actually "safe" under the FDCA because banning them would cause a greater harm to public health than leaving them on the market. But this safety determination-focusing on the relative harms caused by alternative remedial measures-is not a substitute for those required by the FDCA. Various provisions in the Act require the agency to determine that, at least for some consumers, the product's therapeutic benefits outweigh the risks of illness or serious injury. This the FDA cannot do, because tobacco products are unsafe for obtaining any therapeutic benefit. The inescapable conclusion is that there is no room for tobacco products within the FDCA's regulatory scheme. If they cannot be used safely for any therapeutic purpose, and yet they cannot be banned, they simply do not fit. Pp. 10-20.
(c) The history of tobacco-specific legislation also demonstrates that Congress has spoken directly to the FDA's authority to regulate tobacco products. Since 1965, Congress has enacted six separate statutes addressing the problem of tobacco use and human health. Those statutes, among other things, require that health warnings appear on all packaging and in all print and outdoor advertisements, see 15 U.S.C. § 1331 1333, 4402; prohibit the advertisement of tobacco products through any electronic communication medium regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, see §§1335, 4402(f); require the Secretary of HHS to report every three years to Congress on research findings concerning tobacco's addictive property, 42 U.S.C. § 290aa-2(b)(2); and make States' receipt of certain federal block grants contingent on their prohibiting any tobacco product manufacturer, retailer, or distributor from selling or distributing any such product to individuals under age 18, §300x-26(a)(1). This tobacco-specific legislation has created a specific regulatory scheme for addressing the problem of tobacco and health. And it was adopted against the backdrop of the FDA consistently and resolutely stating that it was without authority under the FDCA to regulate tobacco products as customarily marketed. In fact, Congress several times considered and rejected bills that would have given the FDA such authority. Indeed, Congress' actions in this area have evidenced a clear intent to preclude a meaningful policymaking role for any administrative agency. Further, Congress' tobacco legislation prohibits any additional regulation of tobacco product labeling with respect to tobacco's health consequences, a central aspect of regulation under the FDCA. Under these circumstances, it is evident that Congress has ratified the FDA's previous, long-held position that it lacks jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products as customarily marketed. Congress has created a distinct scheme for addressing the subject, and that scheme excludes any role for FDA regulation. Pp. 20-37.
(d) Finally, the Court's inquiry is shaped, at least in some measure, by the nature of the question presented. Chevron deference is premised on the theory that a statute's ambiguity constitutes an implicit delegation from Congress to the agency to fill in the statutory gaps. See 467 U.S., at 844. In extraordinary cases, however, there may be reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress has intended such an implicit delegation. This is hardly an ordinary case. Contrary to the agency's position from its inception until 1995, the FDA has now asserted jurisdiction to regulate an industry constituting a significant portion of the American economy. In fact, the FDA contends that, were it to determine that tobacco products provide no "reasonable assurance of safety," it would have the authority to ban cigarettes and smokeless tobacco entirely. It is highly unlikely that Congress would leave the determination as to whether the sale of tobacco products would be regulated, or even banned, to the FDA's discretion in so cryptic a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Louisiana Federal Land Bank v. Farm Credit Admin.
...with the ever-changing facts and circumstances surrounding the subjects regulated." See FDA v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 132, 120 S.Ct. 1291, 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000) (citing Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 187, 111 S.Ct. 1759, 114 L.Ed.2d 233 C. Standards Governing an......
-
U.S. Small Bus. Admin. v. Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe
..."extraordinary case" exception arises from a line of Supreme Court precedent that starts with FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. , 529 U.S. 120, 120 S.Ct. 1291, 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000). There, pursuant to a Congressional grant of rule-making authority in 21 U.S.C. § 371(a), the Food and......
-
State Farm Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lara
...in trying to capture group-wide data, they cannot supplant the statutory meaning. (See, e.g., FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (2000) 529 U.S. 120, 161, 120 S.Ct. 1291, 146 L.Ed.2d 121 ["no matter how ‘important, conspicuous, and controversial’ the issue, ... an administrative agency......
-
Exela Pharma Scis., LLC v. Sandoz, Inc., CIVIL CASE NO. 1:19-cv-00318-MR
..."that any product regulated by the FDA is ‘safe’ and ‘effective’ for its intended use." FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133, 120 S.Ct. 1291, 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000) (citing 21 U.S.C. § 393(b)(2) ). As such, the FDA "must evaluate the risks associated" with a drug short......
-
Does 'Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett' Herald The Demise Of The 'Failure-To-Withdraw' Theory?
...FDA concluded product warnings about Reye's syndrome at that time were adequate); and see FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 137-38, 120 S. Ct. 1291, 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000) ("Congress, however, has foreclosed the removal of tobacco products from the market."). Liabil......
-
Supreme Court Expands States' Ability To Recoup Future Medicaid Costs From Tort Recoveries
...of the majority: Arkansas Dept. of Health and Human Servs. v. Ahlborn, 547 U. S. 268 (2006); FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120 (2000); National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense, 583 U. S. ___, ___ (2018); Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983); United......
-
Guest Post − No One Should Ever Rely on What Lohr Says about FDA Device Clearance
...(B), (C). That is what the statute says, and what the Supreme Court has affirmed, in FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 134 (2000): “Regardless of which category FDA chooses, there must be a ‘reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device’” Id. The cl......
-
Guest Post − No One Should Ever Rely on What Lohr Says about FDA Device Clearance
...(B), (C). That is what the statute says, and what the Supreme Court has affirmed, in FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 134 (2000): “Regardless of which category FDA chooses, there must be a ‘reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device’” Id. The cl......
-
Shaping Immigration Policy Through Federal Courts
...reasonable boundaries of any ambiguity to be found in the statute and related regulations").46. FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 132 (2000). See also Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 980, 1003 (2005) (filling the gaps in an ambig......
-
Using Law and Policy to Address Chemical Exposures: Examining Federal and State Approaches
...Hawaii’s Whistleblower Protection Act). 264 21 U.S.C. §§ 301−399f (2012). 265 See, e.g. , FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp . , 529 U.S. 120, 164–65 (2000) (Breyer, J., dissenting) (discussing the legislative history of the FDCA). 266 518 U.S. 470 (1996). 267 Id. at 480–81; see also Lo......
-
Brief for natural resources defense council as amici curiae supporting respondent, United States V. Atlantic Research Corp., No. 06-562 (U.S. Apr. 5, 2007).
...and 113(f) is also consistent with both Branch v. Smith, 538 U.S. 254 (2003) ("Branch"), and FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000) ("Brown & Williamson"). Branch establishes that courts have a duty to reconcile a preexisting statute and any amendments thereto ......
-
Dealing with Dead Crimes
...later and more specific enactments prevail over earlier and more general enactments. See, e.g. , FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 143 (2000); Pac. Lumber Co. v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 126 P.3d 1040, 1053–54 (Cal. 2006). 300. See Fissell, supra note 159, at 840 ......
-
DC_Register Vol 65, No 28, July 13, 2018 Pages 07341 to 07498
...2010). 33 George Washington Univ. v. D.C. Bd. of Adjustment, 831 A.2d 921, 943 (D.C. 2003). 34 FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 143 Tulsa Airports Improvements Trust v. United States, 120 Fed. Cl. 254, 262 (2015). 36 Brown v. Consol. Rail Corp., 717 A.2d 309, 313 (D.C.......