October Term 2008 · Docket 07-562

Does federal law block state suits over cigarette health claims?

Altria argues federal law preempts state fraud claims. Good argues state law allows such suits.

Official caption
Altria Group, Inc. v. Good
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Theodore Olson argued the federal statute explicitly preempts state requirements.

    He stated the complaint challenges promotions of light cigarettes.

    He claimed Congress preempted requirements respecting promotion based on health.

    Justice Ginsburg questioned if states could sue over specific nicotine statements.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Altria Group, Inc. v. Good

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 6, 2008.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Altria wants the Court to dismiss Good's state law claims.

Good wants the Court to allow her state law claims to proceed.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Altria argues the federal Cigarette Labeling Act preempts state claims about smoking health.

Good argues the federal Act did not intend to shield false statements.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Ginsburg asked if states could sue over specific nicotine claims.

Justice Kennedy asked if manufacturers must disclose new drug interactions.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the boundary between federal and state consumer protection laws. It determines whether states can police false health claims. It affects how companies market products with health implications. It shapes the balance of regulatory power.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON