An Important Ruling for Big Tobacco

On Monday, tobacco was a drug regulated under federal law. On Tuesday, that all stopped. The labyrinthine legal two-step between the tobacco industry and its foes continued when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the FDA does not have the right to regulate tobacco as a drug. That the high court was in a position to rule on this at all is an indicator of how convoluted the reasoning in this case has become. For 60 years, the FDA followed its self-imposed hands-off policy on tobacco because, it reasoned, cigarette makers never claimed their product provided health benefits. In 1996, however, in a fit of creative interpretation, the FDA reversed course, claiming that tobacco did, in fact, fall under their jurisdiction, because smokers used cigarettes for a number of calming effects.

Last year, after making its way through the nation's appeals courts, the argument over FDA regulation of tobacco landed in the Supreme Court. Tuesday's ruling, which was accompanied by Stephen Breyer's scathing dissent, pushes tobacco back into congressional hands. Anti-smoking forces worry that the Court's decision could weaken the tobacco industry's newfound resolve to voluntarily enhance warning labels on cigarettes and step up efforts to keep minors from smoking. But while Tuesday's ruling is certainly a victory for tobacco — sending Philip Morris's stock through the roof — the triumph could be short-lived, says TIME legal writer Adam Cohen. "The issue of regulation is back in the hands of a very divided Congress," he says, "which is good news as far as the tobacco industry is concerned." But cigarette makers still face a number of potentially devastating individual lawsuits, says Cohen: "As long as these private suits are pending, the pressure will remain on the industry to show they are changing for the better." And what's a few new labels and age restrictions, cigarette makers may figure, if they help stanch a judge and jury's urge to dole out another multibillion-dollar award?