Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 232

529US1

Unit: $U36

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

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

157

Opinion of the Court

in stone.” Chevron, 467 U. S., at 863; see also Smiley v. Cit-
ibank (South Dakota), N. A., 517 U. S. 735, 742 (1996). As
we recognized in Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States,
Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29
(1983), agencies “must be given ample latitude to ‘adapt their
rules and policies to the demands of changing circum-
stances.’ ”
Id., at 42 (quoting Permian Basin Area Rate
Cases, 390 U. S. 747, 784 (1968)). The consistency of the
FDA’s prior position is signiﬁcant in this case for a different
reason: It provides important context to Congress’ enact-
ment of its tobacco-speciﬁc legislation. When the FDA re-
peatedly informed Congress that the FDCA does not grant
it the authority to regulate tobacco products, its statements
were consistent with the agency’s unwavering position since
its inception, and with the position that its predecessor
agency had ﬁrst taken in 1914. Although not crucial, the
consistency of the FDA’s prior position bolsters the conclu-
sion that when Congress created a distinct regulatory
scheme addressing the subject of tobacco and health, it un-
derstood that the FDA is without jurisdiction to regulate
tobacco products and ratiﬁed that position.

The dissent also argues that the proper inference to be
drawn from Congress’ tobacco-speciﬁc legislation is “criti-
cally ambivalent.” Post, at 182. We disagree.
In that se-
ries of statutes, Congress crafted a speciﬁc legislative re-
sponse to the problem of tobacco and health, and it did so
with the understanding, based on repeated assertions by the
FDA, that the agency has no authority under the FDCA to
regulate tobacco products. Moreover, Congress expressly
pre-empted any other regulation of the labeling of tobacco
products concerning their health consequences, even though
the oversight of labeling is central to the FDCA’s regulatory
scheme. And in addressing the subject, Congress consist-
ently evidenced its intent to preclude any federal agency
from exercising signiﬁcant policymaking authority in the
area. Under these circumstances, we believe the appro-