Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. v. County of Los Angeles, California, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 20-55930 · judgment March 18, 2022
Before the decision, about 4.9× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a Ninth Circuit decision below, and a circuit split argued in the petition, and down for a state or local-government respondent.
Question presented
Twice in the last two decades, this Court has reversed the Ninth Circuit for allowing states and localities to use sales bans to evade express federal preemption of state and local standards. In Engine Manufacturers, this Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that California could escape preemption of state vehicle emissions “standards” by banning the purchase (but not the manufacture) of cars that did not meet the state standards. Engine Mfrs. Ass’n v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 541 U.S. 246, 254 (2004). The Court held that “a standard is a standard even when not enforced through manufacturerdirected regulation.” Id. Similarly, in National Meat, this Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that California could avoid express preemption of state manufacturing standards by framing the state law as a sales ban. Nat’l Meat Ass’n v. Harris, 565 U.S. 452, 464 (2012). To hold otherwise “would make a mockery of the [Act’s] preemption provision.” Id. As Judge Nelson explained in dissenting from the decision below, the Ninth Circuit has now committed the same error for a third time, by “allow[ing] states and municipalities to defeat [the] entire purpose” of the federal Tobacco Control Act’s express preemption of state and local product standards “with a sales ban.” Pet.App.36a (Nelson, J. dissenting). The question presented is: Whether the Tobacco Control Act expressly preempts state and local laws that prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Noel John Francisco
Jones Day
For respondent
Kent Randall Raygor
Sheppard, Mullin, et al.
Proceedings
- Feb 27 2023Petition DENIED.
- Feb 08 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/24/2023.
- Feb 07 2023Reply of petitioners R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Jan 20 2023Brief of respondents Cty. of Los Angeles, et al. in opposition filed.
- Nov 29 2022Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 20, 2023.
- Nov 28 2022Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 22, 2022 to January 20, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
- Nov 22 2022Response Requested. (Due December 22, 2022)
- Nov 15 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/2/2022.
- Nov 14 2022Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)
- Nov 14 2022Brief amici curiae of E-Cigarette Businesses and Trade Associations filed. (Distributed)
- Nov 14 2022Amicus brief of Vapor Technology Association not accepted for filing. (November 17, 2022 - Corrected brief to be submitted)
- Nov 14 2022Brief amicus curiae of Vapor Technology Association filed. (Distributed)
- Nov 10 2022Waiver of right of respondent Cty. of Los Angeles, et al. to respond filed.
- Nov 07 2022Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Cty. of Los Angeles, et al.
- Oct 17 2022Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al.
- Oct 12 2022Letter of October 7, 2022 pursuant to Rule 35.3 from petitioners received.
- Oct 07 2022Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 14, 2022)
- Jul 15 2022Application (22A33) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until October 7, 2022.
- Jul 12 2022Application (22A33) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 9, 2022 to October 7, 2022, submitted to Justice Kagan.