Opinion ID: 803964
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Overall Statutory Scheme

Text: To the extent the language of the preemption provision itself is or may be ambiguous, our conclusion is supported by the overall statutory scheme. The Labeling Act seeks to strike a balance between two competing interests: (1) ensuring that Americans are adequately warned about the health consequences of smoking; and (2) protecting free commerce. See 15 U.S.C. § 1331. The Resolution affects this balance by seeking to advance the first interest at the expense of the second. The requirement that retailers post graphic images might serve to further educate consumers, but it does so by imposing a direct burden on cigarette retailers. The Resolution was born of the assumption that the federally mandated warnings did not adequately or -26- effectively inform consumers of the health risks of smoking. (Notice of Adoption at 1-3; Proposal at 3). Specifically, the City apparently believed that there remain[ed] significant gaps in smokers' understanding of these risks. (Notice of Adoption at 2). It also observed that the retail environment lacks information about tobacco health risks (Proposal at 3), and highlighted research indicating textual warnings (such as the ones currently mandated by Congress) were not as effective as pictorial warnings (Notice of Adoption at 3). In other words, the City was not satisfied with the balance struck by Congress, and it sought to shift the balance further in favor of discouraging smoking, at the expense of free commerce. The City's desire to tilt the balance more in favor of educating consumers is understandable. Indeed, the City may seek to tilt the balance further by imposing time, place, or manner restrictions, and by launching its own anti-smoking campaigns. But what the City cannot do is seek to affect the balance by requiring a manufacturer or retailer to display supplemental content at the point of -27- purchase. Specifically, it cannot require retailers to post warning signs adjacent to cigarette displays, because doing so would affect the content of the retailers and manufacturers' promotional efforts. The legislative scheme contemplates that Congress, and only Congress, will amend the content of warnings required of manufacturers to educate consumers, see S. Rep. No. 98-177, at 6-7; FSPTCA § 201(a), without interference or supplementary efforts by state or local authorities. Allowing state or local authorities to mandate supplementary warnings on or near cigarette displays risks the creation of diverse, nonuniform, and confusing regulations. See 15 U.S.C. 1331(2)(B). Indeed, there is a risk of such nonuniform regulation here. Congress has directed the FDA to prescribe graphic warnings for cigarette packages. FSPTCA § 201(a) (the Secretary shall issue regulations that require color graphics depicting the negative health consequences of smoking). While new FDA regulations have not yet gone into effect, Congress intends for some form of graphic image to appear on packages in the -28- near future.7 The Resolution would require additional graphic warnings to be placed in close proximity to the federally mandated ones. Such competing, and potentially duplicative, warnings are not contemplated by the federal statutory scheme. To be sure, we do not hold that supplementary warnings are, in and of themselves, preempted by the Labeling Act. We hold only that requiring retailers to post graphic supplementary warnings adjacent to cigarette displays is preempted. Of course, states and localities remain free to impose time, place, and manner restrictions on the advertising and promotion of cigarettes, and to engage in anti-smoking campaigns using their own resources. Our holding today should not be read to curtail in any way 7 Notably, some of the images proposed by the FDA were similar in nature to the ones proposed by the City (e.g., a cancerous lung; a decaying tooth); others were very different (e.g., a drawing of crying baby; a picture of a corpse). See New Cigarette Labels Feature Graphic Images, USA Today (June 21, 2011), http://mediagallery.usatoday.com/ New-cigarette-lables-feature-graphic-images/G2394 (last visited July 9, 2012). -29- state and locally funded efforts to further educate consumers and counter cigarette advertising and promotion.