Court overturns tobacco company victory over FDA on menthols

Headline Legal News

A federal appeals court has ruled that tobacco companies had no basis to challenge a Food and Drug Administration report on menthol cigarettes, which the industry alleged was written by experts with conflicts of interest.

The decision by a three-judge panel overturns a lower court ruling that barred the FDA from using the report and ordered the agency to reform its committee of tobacco advisers.

The 2011 report from the agency's Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee concluded that menthol flavoring leads to increased smoking rates, particularly among teens, African Americans and those with low incomes. The report said removing the flavoring would make it easier for some smokers to quit.

Cigarette makers Lorillard Inc. and Reynolds American Inc. sued the agency, alleging conflicts of interest by several members who had previously testified against tobacco companies in court.

But Judge Stephen Williams, writing for the court, states that the companies had no legal basis to challenge the makeup of the committee. Williams rejected company arguments that they could be damaged by the apparent conflicts as "too remote and uncertain." The opinion was issued Friday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Despite the victory for the federal government, the ruling may have limited impact on the FDA or its panel. Last year the FDA announced that four members of its tobacco products advisory panel had either resigned or were removed, following the previous court ruling against the agency.

In 2013, the FDA conducted its own review of menthol cigarettes, concluding they pose a greater public health risk than regular cigarettes. But it did not make a recommendation on whether to limit or ban them.

Related listings

  • High court takes up challenges to drunken-driving test

    High court takes up challenges to drunken-driving test

    Headline Legal News 12/20/2015

    The Supreme Court will decide whether states can criminalize a driver's refusal to take an alcohol test even if police have not obtained a search warrant. The justices on Friday agreed to hear three cases challenging laws in Minnesota and North Dakot...

  • Court papers: Witness ID'd man in playground shooting

    Court papers: Witness ID'd man in playground shooting

    Headline Legal News 12/01/2015

    A witness's statement and photo identification led to the arrest of a man accused in a playground shootout that wounded 17 people, court papers show. Joseph "Moe" Allen, 32, faces 17 counts of attempted murder in the Nov. 22 gunfight at Bunny Friend ...

  • Snowboarders fight ban at Utah resort in appeals court

    Snowboarders fight ban at Utah resort in appeals court

    Headline Legal News 11/17/2015

    A group of snowboarders who argue a ban on their sport at Utah's Alta Ski Area amounts to discrimination are set to present their case Tuesday to a federal appeals court in Denver. The lawsuit, filed in early 2014, brought renewed attention to the lo...

Is Now the Time to Really Call a Special Education Lawyer?

IDEA, FAPE, CHILD FIND and IEPs: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guarantees all children with disabilities to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). FAPE starts with a school’s responsibility to identify that a child has a disability (Child Find) and create an Individualized Education Program (IEP) to suit the needs of the child. Parents need to be persistent, dedicated and above all else aware of the many services and accommodations that their child is entitled to under the law. As early as this point within your child’s special education, many parents will often find themselves in the situation asking, “is now the time to really call a special education lawyer?” Here are a few things to consider when asking yourself that question.

Business News

West Hartford, Connecticut Special Education Lawyer Forte Law Group focuses on special education law and empowering parents to advocate for their child’s rights. >> read