Amicus Brief: Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Fontaine

When Congress expressly provides that federal law overrides state law, courts should give Congress’s words their ordinary meaning (assuming Congress is acting under legitimate constitutional authority). Yet some courts continue to apply a “presumption against preemption,” interpreting federal laws narrowly to preserve state authority—even though the Supreme Court rejected that approach a decade ago.

This case concerns whether federal cigarette-labeling law bars certain claims against Philip Morris under Massachusetts law. Massachusetts’s highest court relied on older Supreme Court decisions favoring a narrow reading of federal law. Those precedents have left lower courts divided over how to interpret federal statutes governing everything from medical devices to transportation.

The Manhattan Institute has filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to hear the case and resolve this confusion. We argue that courts should faithfully apply the limits Congress has expressly placed on state authority. The Court should overrule Altria v. Good, a 2008 cigarette-marketing decision that continues to sustain the discarded presumption. Because this case involves the same federal statute, it offers a particularly good opportunity to settle the issue. Congress’s words should determine the reach of federal law.

James R. Copland is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and director of Legal Policy.

Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow and director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute. Follow him on Twitter here.