NACS Asks Supreme Court to Consider Cigarette Labeling Case
NACS argues that states should not impose cigarette labeling rules that are different than federal rules.
Sep 24, 2026 | 2 min read
On Tuesday, NACS filed a legal brief in support of Philip Morris USA and its efforts to get the Supreme Court to rule that states cannot impose cigarette labeling rules that are different than federal rules.
NACS’ brief emphasized:
“Like all merchants, convenience stores rely on the uniformity and predictability provided by federal preemption. This uniformity is particularly important to convenience stores in the context of cigarettes, where they have no meaningful ability to give different or ‘better’ warnings than the manufacturers, and would likely expose themselves to liability under the Labeling Act if they attempt to do so.”
Philip Morris USA’s effort centers on the case of Philip Morris USA v. Fontaine, which was brought in Massachusetts. In that case, the company was sued for failing to give warnings that were not required by federal law. The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act prescribes standard health warnings for cigarette packages. The Labeling Act also prohibits additional warning requirements under state law.
“Federal law has laid out detailed and specific requirements for labeling tobacco products,” said NACS Senior Vice President for Government Relations and General Counsel Doug Kantor. “It’s time for the Supreme Court to make clear that compliance with those standards is what is needed and that states can’t change those requirements.”
Significantly, a retailer was named as a co-defendant in the case for selling cigarettes that complied with federal law. Retailers have been named as co-defendants in other similar cases even though federal law creates liability risks if retailers do anything to change the labeling of tobacco products.
The plaintiffs that sued Phillip Morris USA will now have an opportunity to respond to the briefs requesting that the Supreme Court hear the case. A decision on whether the Court will take the case may come before the end of the year and, if accepted, there could be a decision by the middle of 2027.
