HomeCase briefs › Constitutional Law

FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 · Constitutional Law
Constitutional LawAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationChevron deferenceChevronagency jurisdictionFDAFDCA

Facts

The FDA concluded that nicotine is a "drug" and that cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are "drug delivery devices" because the products are intended to deliver pharmacological effects such as satisfying addiction, stimulation, tranquilization, and weight control. The Court assumed arguendo that products can be "intended" to affect the body even without therapeutic claims by manufacturers. In its rulemaking, the FDA found tobacco products to be unsafe, dangerous, and a leading cause of preventable death. At the same time, Congress had enacted several tobacco-specific statutes regulating labeling and advertising while allowing tobacco products to remain on the market.

Issue

Whether the FDCA authorizes the FDA to regulate tobacco products as customarily marketed, based on the agency's determination that nicotine is a drug and cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are drug-delivery devices. More specifically, whether Congress had directly spoken to that question so as to preclude FDA jurisdiction under Chevron.

Rule

Under Chevron, a court first asks whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue, and that inquiry requires reading statutory terms in context, as part of a coherent regulatory scheme, and in light of later, more specific statutes. An agency may not claim jurisdiction where its interpretation conflicts with the statute's core structure and with Congress's clear policy choices, especially on a question of great economic and political significance.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Congress enacted the Consumer Therapeutics Act in 1955, authorizing the National Wellness Bureau to regulate any "article intended to affect the structure or function of the body." The Act, however, requires covered products to be safe and effective for their intended use. In 2026, the Bureau claims authority over caffeinated inhaler sticks sold nationwide in Phoenix and Albuquerque after finding they are intended to deliver stimulation, but the Bureau also finds the products are inherently unsafe for that use.

If manufacturers challenge the Bureau's authority, which is the strongest argument against deference to the agency?

Explanation. The majority held that Chevron step one requires reading statutory language in context and as part of a coherent regulatory scheme, not in isolation. Even assuming a product fits a broad definition, jurisdiction fails where the statute's core structure requires regulated products to be safe and effective for intended use, while the agency's own findings establish the opposite.