Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 226.0

529US1

Unit: $U36

[09-26-01 08:36:38] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 120 (2000)

151

Opinion of the Court

241 (CADC 1980); R. Kluger, Ashes to Ashes 375–376 (1996).
After the CPSC determined that it lacked authority under
the HSA to regulate cigarettes, a District Court held that
the HSA did,
in fact, grant the CPSC such jurisdiction
and ordered it to reexamine the petition. See American
Public Health Association v. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, [1972–1975 Transfer Binder] CCH Consumer
Prod. Safety Guide ¶ 75,081 (DC 1975), vacated as moot,
No. 75–1863 (CADC 1976). Before the CPSC could take any
action, however, Congress mooted the issue by adopting leg-
islation that eliminated the agency’s authority to regulate
“tobacco and tobacco products.” Consumer Product Safety
Commission Improvements Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94–284,
§ 3(c), 90 Stat. 503 (codiﬁed at 15 U. S. C. § 1261(f)(2)). Sena-
tor Moss acknowledged that the “legislation, in effect, re-
verse[d]” the District Court’s decision, 121 Cong. Rec. 23563
(1975), and the FDA later observed that the episode was
“particularly” “indicative of the policy of Congress to limit
the regulatory authority over cigarettes by Federal Agen-
cies,” Letter to Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) Execu-
tive Director Banzhaf from FDA Comm’r Goyan (Nov. 25,
1980), App. 59. A separate statement in the Senate Report
underscored that the legislation’s purpose was to “unmistak-
ably reafﬁrm the clear mandate of the Congress that the
basic regulation of tobacco and tobacco products is governed
by the legislation dealing with the subject, . . . and that any
further regulation in this sensitive and complex area must
be reserved for speciﬁc Congressional action.” S. Rep.
No. 94–251, p. 43 (1975) (additional views of Sens. Hartke,
Hollings, Ford, Stevens, and Beall).

Meanwhile, the FDA continued to maintain that it lacked
jurisdiction under the FDCA to regulate tobacco products as
customarily marketed.
In 1972, FDA Commissioner Ed-
wards testiﬁed before Congress that “cigarettes recom-
mended for smoking pleasure are beyond the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” 1972 Hearings 239, 242. He fur-