Supreme Court of the United States

Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.

June 24, 1992505 U.S. 504

Summary

The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Justice Stevens wrote for seven Justices in Parts I–IV, holding that the statutes' express pre-emption provisions govern their pre-emptive scope and that the 1965 Act did not pre-empt state-law damages actions. In Parts V–VI, joined only by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices White and O'Connor, Stevens concluded that the 1969 Act pre-empts failure-to-warn and warning-neutralization claims insofar as they concern advertising or promotion, but not express-warranty, intentional-fraud, or conspiracy claims. Justice Blackmun, joined by Justices Kennedy and Souter, joined Parts I–IV but would have held that neither Act pre-empts any of the common-law damages claims. Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part; he would have found failure-to-warn claims pre-empted under the 1965 Act and all the claims at issue pre-empted under the 1969 Act.

Holding

  • Whether pre-emption is governed by the statutes' express provisions.. The pre-emptive scope of both Acts is governed entirely by the express language of their respective § 5 provisions.
  • Whether the 1965 Act pre-empts common-law damages actions.. The 1965 Act does not pre-empt state-law damages actions.
  • Whether the 1969 Act reaches common-law duties and failure-to-warn claims.. The Stevens plurality concluded that the 1969 Act reaches common-law requirements and pre-empts failure-to-warn claims insofar as they require additional or clearer warnings in post-1969 advertising or promotion, but not claims resting solely on research, testing, or other unrelated conduct.
  • Whether express-warranty claims are pre-empted by the 1969 Act.. The Stevens plurality concluded that viable express-warranty claims are not pre-empted, including warranties made in advertisements.
  • Whether fraudulent-misrepresentation and concealment claims are pre-empted by the 1969 Act.. The Stevens plurality concluded that advertising-based warning-neutralization claims are pre-empted, but intentional false-statement claims and concealment claims involving disclosure duties outside advertising or promotion are not.
  • Whether conspiracy-to-defraud claims are pre-empted by the 1969 Act.. The Stevens plurality concluded that the conspiracy claim is not pre-empted.

Docket 90-1038

Cited authorities

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF