Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Food and Drug Administration

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentCommercial SpeechCompelled SpeechAdministrative LawFirst Amendmentcommercial speechcompelled disclosure

Facts

The Act required cigarette packages and advertisements to carry new textual warnings and color graphics depicting the negative health consequences of smoking. FDA issued a final rule selecting nine graphic images and requiring inclusion of the "1-800-QUIT-NOW" hotline number, relying on an internet-based consumer study, public comments, and research from other countries. The tobacco companies did not challenge Congress's authority to require health warnings or the text of the warning statements, but challenged FDA's graphic warnings as unconstitutional compelled speech. FDA justified the rule primarily as a way to reduce smoking rates by discouraging initiation and encouraging cessation.

Issue

Whether FDA's rule requiring cigarette packages and advertisements to display graphic warning labels, including images and the "1-800-QUIT-NOW" number, violates the First Amendment. More specifically, the court considered whether Zauderer or Central Hudson supplied the proper level of scrutiny and whether the rule satisfied that standard.

Rule

Zauderer does not govern compelled commercial disclosures unless the government shows the disclosure is reasonably related to preventing consumer deception and consists of purely factual and uncontroversial information. Where Zauderer is inapplicable, compelled commercial disclosures are evaluated under Central Hudson, under which the government must show a substantial interest, that the regulation directly advances that interest to a material degree, and that the regulation is not more extensive than necessary; speculation and conjecture are insufficient, and the agency must supply substantial evidence under the APA.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A federal consumer agency requires all sellers of legal caffeinated drinks in Denver and Phoenix to place a full-color image of a trembling hand on the front of each can, alongside the text, "Caffeine can disrupt sleep." The agency explains that the rule is intended to reduce caffeine consumption among teenagers, not to correct any misleading statement by manufacturers.

If a beverage company challenges the rule on First Amendment grounds, which standard should a court apply under the majority's approach?

Explanation. The majority limited Zauderer to compelled disclosures reasonably related to preventing consumer deception and consisting of purely factual and uncontroversial information. Here, the agency's stated aim is reducing consumption, not preventing deception, and the image is emotive rather than purely factual. Under the majority's framework, when Zauderer does not apply, compelled commercial disclosures are evaluated under Central Hudson rather than strict scrutiny. (Derived from R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Food and Drug Administration (n.d.).)