The tobacco industry pleaded with the U.S. Supreme Court last week to invalidate Massachusetts regulations aimed at reducing children’s exposure to cigarette advertising near schools and parks. The state’s set of rules, which primarily impact tobacco advertising at retail stores, is preempted by a federal law on cigarette advertising and also violates the tobacco companies’ right to freedom of speech, argued Jeffrey S. Sutton, the attorney representing four major cigarette manufacturers. "It limits free speech," stated Sutton. "It significantly suppresses the amount of speech aimed at adults regarding a legal product."
However, lawyers representing the state and the U.S. Department of Justice informed the justices on April 25 that the regulations are lawful and justified due to the risks associated with youth tobacco use. "The state’s interest in preventing school-age children from smoking is truly compelling," stated Barbara D. Underwood, the acting U.S. solicitor general. William W. Porter, a Massachusetts assistant attorney general, added that if the court supported the tobacco industry’s arguments, then no state would be able to prohibit cigarette advertisements "from Little League fields or near schools."
This showdown in the case of Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (Case No. 00-596) is the tobacco industry’s second appearance before the Supreme Court in as many years. The industry achieved a significant victory last year when the court ruled 5-4 that the Food and Drug Administration did not have the authority from Congress to regulate nicotine as a drug. This ruling promptly brought an end to the agency’s proposal for broad rules aimed at reducing youth smoking, including a ban on outdoor tobacco advertising within 1,000 feet of a school or playground.
The Massachusetts tobacco regulations, which have been suspended while awaiting the court’s decision, were enacted in early 1999, just a few months after the five largest tobacco companies in the country reached a "master settlement agreement" with 46 states regarding their liability litigation over tobacco-related healthcare costs. Massachusetts officials also signed this agreement, which required the cigarette companies to pay over $200 billion to the states over a span of 25 years. The companies also voluntarily agreed to restrictions on outdoor advertising, such as a ban on billboards and any outdoor advertising at retail stores larger than 14 square feet.
The Massachusetts rules, which prohibit outdoor tobacco advertising at stores within 1,000 feet of a school or park and would also ban interior tobacco displays below five feet from the floor, were upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit in Boston last year. The state argued in court documents that, despite the ban on outdoor cigarette advertising in the settlement, their regulations would further the fight against youth smoking since tobacco companies were increasingly allocating more of their advertising budget to store ads and point-of-sale promotions. Joining the state’s side were the National School Boards Association and its state affiliate, the Massachusetts Association of School Committees, who argued in a friend-of-the-court brief that children deserve special protection against the First Amendment rights of tobacco companies.
During a lively oral argument session, the justices deliberated whether the state’s restrictions were preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. The 1969 law states that "no requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health shall be imposed under state law with respect to advertising or promotion of any cigarettes" with federally mandated warning labels. Some justices remained unconvinced that the law was meant to prevent state regulation of outdoor tobacco advertising.
"When you read the federal statute, it appears to be directed at what was on cigarette labels," stated Justice Sandra Day O’Connor to Mr. Sutton. "We are dealing with a commodity like no other," remarked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "This is highly addictive and particularly dangerous for children, who can become addicted at the age of 13 and remain hooked for the rest of their lives." However, Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that the 1969 law seems to be "a fairly broad ban against state regulation" of tobacco advertising. On the issue of the First Amendment, Justice Scalia drew a parallel to the regulation of pornography. "We have been very firm in asserting that you cannot prevent adults from accessing it," he noted. Mr. Porter responded by highlighting that while parents have the ability to protect their children from pornography, "here, parents have no opportunity to shield their children from tobacco advertising they see as they walk to school every day."
Your assignment is to rephrase the entire text using appropriate vocabulary and language to ensure uniqueness. The output should be written in natural English. The provided text is as follows:
"Please rewrite the given text in better words and make it unique by using natural language. All output should be in the English language."
