This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case concerns whether state‑law claims about deceptive cigarette advertising are pre‑empted by the federal Cigarette Labeling Act.
Background and question before the Court
Respondents argue that their state‑law claims mirror the pre‑emption provision of the Cigarette Labeling Act, and the United States Government has previously said the Act pre‑empts state laws concerning cigarette advertising. The Court is asked whether the Act pre‑empts state‑law claims regarding deceptive cigarette advertising.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Altria Group, Inc.)
According to Mr. Olson, congress specifically addresses smoking and health in the advertising of cigarettes.
According to David C. Frederick, the labeling act gave no intention whatsoever to immunize cigarette makers for false statements that violate anti‑deception rules.
According to Mr. Frederick, that was the general purpose of the statute.
Respondent (Stephanie Good)
According to Altria Group, Inc., et al., respondents' state law claims track nearly verbatim the Cigarette Labeling Act's pre‑emption provision.
According to Respondents, that is the argument, and the Respondents are making that argument.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg: Is it a question of just how you phrase it, Mr. Olson? Is there any scope for state attorney general imposition of state law remedies against a deceptive practice involving advertising cigarettes?
According to Justice Souter, justice Souter: Mr. Olson, doesn't your answer in effect, in practical terms, exclude the possibility of inserts like that? I mean, what else would they be addressing except smoking and health?
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy: Suppose a new drug is found for the treatment of a condition, glaucoma—hypothetical—and the evidence is stunningly clear that smoking with this new drug causes a severe allergic reaction. Does the cigarette manufacturer have any duty to disclose this on the label or in promotions?
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer: In Cipollone, does the statute not pre‑empt State law where it is based on a prohibition of making a false statement of material fact?
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens: Is a State requirement prohibiting false statements about smoking and health a requirement based on smoking and health?
According to Justice Souter, justice Souter: Isn't the problem that Congress was equally clear, or has at least been assumed to be equally clear, in a contrary line of reasoning that holds against you? That line of reasoning is that the FTC can regulate advertising and deception that relate to smoking and health.
Justice Ginsburg: Could a state attorney general, under your authority to check against false and deceptive advertising, say no cigarette company can advertise low or light in this State?
- [1] 885410470ec0cd9602df-r1-c46f3eea9ab7f069.pdf, p. 5
- [2] 885410470ec0cd9602df-r1-c46f3eea9ab7f069.pdf, p. 6
- [3] 885410470ec0cd9602df-r1-c46f3eea9ab7f069.pdf, p. 7
- [4] 885410470ec0cd9602df-r1-c46f3eea9ab7f069.pdf, p. 8
- [5] 885410470ec0cd9602df-r1-c46f3eea9ab7f069.pdf, p. 12
- [6] 885410470ec0cd9602df-r1-c46f3eea9ab7f069.pdf, p. 19
- [7] 885410470ec0cd9602df-r1-c46f3eea9ab7f069.pdf, p. 37
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 885410470ec0cd9602df-r1-c46f3eea9ab7f069.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.