R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY et al v. UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION et al
Filing
40
Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief by WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Proposed Amicus Brief, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Samp, Richard)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY;
LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY;
COMMONWEALTH BRANDS, INC.;
LIGGETT GROUP LLC; and SANTA FE
NATURAL TOBACCO COMPANY, INC.,
CIVIL ACTION NO: 11-1482(RCL)
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION; MARGARET
HAMBURG, Commissioner of the United
States Food and Drug Administration; and
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary of the
United States Department of Health and
Human Services,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
UNOPPOSED MOTION OF WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT
OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF), through undersigned counsel, hereby moves
for leave to file the attached brief as amicus curiae in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for summary
judgment (Dkt. 10) and in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 34).
In support of its motion, WLF states as follows:
1. Founded in 1977, WLF is a public interest law and policy center with supporters in all
50 states. WLF regularly participates as amicus curiae in litigation to promote economic liberty,
free enterprise, and a limited and accountable government. In particular, WLF has devoted
substantial resources over the years to defending free speech rights, both of individuals and of
the business community. To that end, WLF has regularly appeared before this and other federal
and state courts in cases raising important First Amendment issues, especially those involving
compelled speech. See, e.g., Johanns v. Livestock Mktg. Ass’n, 544 U.S. 550 (2005); United
States v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405 (2001); Glickman v. Wileman Bros. & Elliott, Inc.,
521 U.S. 457 (1997).
2. WLF strongly objects to government efforts to compel individuals or corporations to
speak against their will. WLF has reviewed the pleadings and related filings in this case and
supports each of the arguments made in Plaintiffs’ memorandum in support of their motion for
summary judgment (Dkt. 11). WLF desires to file separately, however, to address the
Government’s contention that Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of
Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), supplies the appropriate level of First Amendment scrutiny in this
case. Simply put, the new graphic warnings the FDA seeks to impose in this case are not
ordinary disclosure requirements of the kind upheld in Zauderer. Rather, they are the sort of
controversial, nonfactual disclosures of which Zauderer very clearly did not approve. Such
ideological messages have nothing to do with protecting consumers from being misled—a
bedrock requirement of Zauderer. If anything, Zauderer actually highlights the constitutional
defect in the FDA’s position.
3. WLF also doubts the empirical effectiveness of the FDA’s new warnings regime. No
credible evidence exists that the proposed graphic warnings would accomplish the Government’s
stated goal of reducing smoking rates among adults and children. Indeed, FDA’s own regulatory
impact analysis concluded that the estimated impact the new warnings will have on smoking
rates is “not statistically distinguishable from zero.” In the absence of any evidence that the new
2
warnings will “have a significant, positive impact on public health,” there can be no justification
for drastically commandeering the packaging and advertising of a perfectly legal product.
4. WLF has no financial interest in the outcome of this case. Accordingly, WLF can
provide the Court with a unique perspective that is not shared by any of the parties. In particular,
WLF can point out the dangers of government efforts to compel individuals or corporations to
speak against their will, especially when no credible empirical evidence exists that the proposed
speech would accomplish the Government’s stated goals.
5. This Court earlier granted WLF’s request for leave (Dkt. 22) to file as an amicus in
support of Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. Before filing the instant motion, counsel
for WLF contacted counsel for all parties to determine whether they would consent to the filing
of WLF’s brief. Counsel for Plaintiffs provided their consent; counsel for Defendants stated that
Defendants had no objection to the filing of WLF’s brief.
WHEREFORE, WLF respectfully requests that this motion for leave to file its proposed
amicus curiae brief be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Richard A. Samp
Daniel J. Popeo
Cory L. Andrews
Richard A. Samp (D.C. Bar No. 367194)
(Counsel of Record)
Washington Legal Foundation
2009 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 588-0302
Facsimile: (202) 588-0386
E-Mail: rsamp@wlf.org
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
3
LCvR 7.1 DISCLOSURE
Case No. 10-1529, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA
This is the Certificate required by LCvR 7.1 of the Local Rules of the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia. The moving party—the Washington Legal
Foundation—is a corporation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code .
I, the undersigned counsel of record for the Washington Legal Foundation, certify that
WLF is a non-profit corporation that issues no publicly held stock, and has no parent company,
subsidiary, or affiliate that has any outstanding securities in the hands of the public.
These representations are made in order that judges of this Court may determine the need
for recusal.
/s/ Richard A. Samp
Richard A. Samp (D.C. Bar No. 367194)
(Counsel of Record)
Washington Legal Foundation
2009 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 588-0302
Facsimile: (202) 588-0386
E-Mail: rsamp@wlf.org
Counsel of Record for Amicus Curiae
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?