Litigation is an important tool to defend and advance public health policy. This tracker provides information and official court documents from select lawsuits within the focus areas of the Public Health Law Center, including commercial tobacco control and healthy eating. Some cases are relevant to cross-cutting issues that affect public health, such as preemption and First Amendment considerations. The Public Health Law Center has supported public health goals as an amicus curiae, or friend-of-the-court, by filing briefs (included here) with relevant information that the court may choose to consider. You can read more about the Function and Role of Amicus Briefs in Public Health Litigation.
Public Health Topics
Displaying 41 - 60 of 87

Earl E. Graham v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the 11th Circuit) (2016)

The legal issue in this case is whether the Panel’s preemption analysis accurately interpreted Congressional intent when it omitted consideration of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act’s preservation and savings clauses, leading to the conclusion that any state regulation banning sales of tobacco product is subject to implied preemption.

State

Florida

Most Recent Activity

Status

Pending

Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, U.S. No. 15-1391 (2016)

The legal issue in this case is whether state credit card no-surcharge laws unconstitutionally restrict speech conveying price information (as the Eleventh Circuit has held), or regulate economic conduct (as the Second and Fifth Circuits have held).

State

New York

Most Recent Activity

Status

Pending

National Restaurant Association v. NYC Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, et al. (2016)

The legal issue in this case is whether New York City’s sodium warning rule is a scientifically controversial, arbitrary and capricious, constitutionally invalid measure preempted by federal law, or whether the sodium warning is a scientifically sound, legally well-grounded measure representing a reasonable response to a public health crisis.

State

New York

Most Recent Activity

Status

Pending

Lorillard Inc. et al. v. U.S. Food & Drug Administration (2011)

Lorillard Inc. and R.J. Reynolds challenged the composition of the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC). The court determined that the challenge to TPSAC’s report on menthol was not ripe for judicial review.

State

Washington D.C.

Most Recent Activity

Status

Resolved

National Association of Manufacturers, et al., v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (2015)

The legal issue in this case is whether the court should grant en banc review of National Association of Manufacturers, et al. v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, given the panel’s novel holdings that, if broadly adopted, would have a significant impact on the robust mandatory disclosure regimes required in public health and safety.

State

Washington D.C.

Most Recent Activity

Status

Pending

Jerry Beeman and Pharmacy Services vs. Anthem Prescription Management (2013)

The legal issue in this case is whether the Free Speech Clause of the California Constitution extends so far into the ordinary business of government as to forbid regulation of basic economic activity whenever that activity happens to involve language or information, including the enactment of a statute that requires the gathering and mailing of unadorned statistical data.

State

California

Most Recent Activity

Status

Pending

David Schuman v. Greenbelt Homes, Inc., No. 2020, Md. Ct. Spec. App. (2012)

The legal issue in this case is whether the Circuit Court erred (1) in denying Appellant’s motion for a preliminary injunction based on a finding that Appellant had only demonstrated that secondhand smoke, a known carcinogen, was an “offensive odor” and therefore not a nuisance; (2) in requiring “medical evidence demonstrating an unfavorable health condition” or “materially diminished property value” before determining the secondhand smoke to be a nuisance warranting the granting of a preliminary injunction; and (3) in applying the deferential “business judgment rule” in the context of a residential common interest community as opposed to the “reasonableness” standard.

State

Maryland

Most Recent Activity

Status

Pending