v.c. The 2009 Amendment to the Act's preemption provision unmistakably demonstrates Congress' intent to narrowly limit the scope offederal preemption .....54 2. The Flavored Tobacco

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TOBACCO OUTLETS INC CIGAR ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA INC LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY RJ REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY AMERICAN SNUFF COMPANY PHILIP MORRIS USA INC US SMOKELESS TOBACCO MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC US SMOKELESS TOBACCO BRANDS INC and JOHN MIDDLETON COMPANY

Plaintiffs v CA No 12-96 M

CITY OF PROVIDENCE Rhode Island PROVIDENCE BOARD OF LICENSES PROVIDENCE POLICE DEPARTMENT MICHAEL A SOLOMON Providence City Council President in his official capacity STEVEN M PARE Commissioner ofPublic Safety for the City ofProvidence in his official capacity and ANGEL TAVERAS Mayor ofProvidence in his official capacity

Defendants

DEFENDANTS MEMORANDAUM (1) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS JOINT MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT A PERMANENT INJUNCTION

AND A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND (2) IN SUPPORT OF UEFENDANTS CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DEFENDANTS By their attorneys JEFFREY M P ADWA CITY SOLICITOR

Anthony F Cottone (3922) Deputy City Solicitor 444 Westminster Street Suite 200 Providence RI 02903 (401) 680-5333 (401) 680-5520 (Fax)

June 152012 acottoneprovidencericom

Case 112-cv-00096-ML-LDA Document 44-1 Filed 061512 Page 1 of 88 PageID 766

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I TABLE OF LEGAL AUTHORITIES iv

II INTRODUCTION 1

III SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 3

A The Ordinances do not violate Plaintiffs First Amendment rights 3

B The Ordinances are not pre-empted under either the FCLAA or the FSPTCA 4

C The Flavored Tobacco Ordinance does not violate the void for vagueness doctrine 5

D Defendants have not violated Plaintiffs rights under 42 USC sect 1983 and the City Council has not violated the OMA5

E The Price Ordinance is not preempted under state law and the Ordinances do not violate separation of powers under state law 6

F Plaintiffs are not entitled to a preliminary injunction 6

IV FACTS 7

A The Public Health Threat 7

B Tobacco and youth8

C The Tobacco Companies Use ofPrice Discounting To Target Young Persons 12

D The Industrys Use of Smokeless Tobacco and Flavored Tobacco Products to Target Youth 18

E Governmental Regulation of Tobacco 21

1 Federal Law and Regulation 21

2 Rhode Islands Regulation of Tobacco22

3 The Providence Ordinances Being Challenged 24 a The Price Ordinance 26 b The Flavored Tobacco Ordinance 27


V LEGAL ARGUMENT 28

A The Standard ofReview28

B Neither ordinance concerns speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment (Counts I and VIII) 30

1 The Price Ordinance makes it illegal to accept or redeem or to offer to accept or redeem certain products and simply has nothing to do with protected speech or expressive conduct 30

2 Plaintiffs have ignored the plain language of the Flavored Tobacco Ordinance which also does not concern speech or protected conduct 32

3 All the First Amendment cases relied upon by Plaintiffs concern restrictions on the dissemination of information which is not the case here 34

4 A deferential rational basis standard of review must be applied to the Ordinances 37

5 Since the Ordinances concern conduct and not speech 0 Brien not Central Hudson would apply if one were to assume for arguments sake that the prohibited conduct was protected by the First Amendment (which it is not) 39

6 The Ordinances would pass constitutional muster under either OBrien or Central Hudson assuming for arguments sake that they even applied (which they dont) 42

a The 0 Brien test 42

b Plaintiffs Central Hudson argument lacks merit 42

1 The Ordinances directly advance a substantial government interest 43

11 The Ordinances are narrowly tailored 45

11


C Neither ordinance is preempted under federal law (Counts II and IX) 48

1 The Price Ordinance and the FCLAA 49

a The FCLAA Amendments 51

b The Supreme Court has fairly and narrowly interpreted the 1970 preemption provision 52

c The 2009 Amendment to the Acts preemption provision unmistakably demonstrates Congress intent to narrowly limit the scope of federal preemption 54

2 The Flavored Tobacco Ordinance and the FSPTCA 56

D The Flavored Tobacco Ordinance is not vague and does not violate Plaintiffs due process rights (Count VIII) 59

E The Price Ordinance is not preempted under existing state law (Count V) 62

F The Ordinances do not depend upon the validity of the Licensing Ordinance (Counts IV and Xl) 66

G Plaintiffs are not entitled to a preliminary injunction 72

1 Plaintiffs will not succeed on the merits 73

2 Plaintiffs have failed to establish irreparable harm as a matter oflaw73

3 Enjoining enforcement would not be in the public interest 75

VI CONCLUSION76

111


I TABLE OF LEGAL AUTHORITIES

A Cases Page(s)

44 Liquormart Inc v Rhode Island 517 US 484 (1996) passim

American Lithuanian Naturalization Club v Board ofHealth ofAthol

Altria Group Inc v Good 555 US 70 (2008) 48

446 Mass 310 844 NE2d 231 (2005) 66

Amicos Inc v Mattos 789 A2d 899 (R 2002) 24 66

Anderson v Liberty Lobby Inc 477 US 242 (1986) 28

Antonio Roig Suers v Sugar Board ofPuerto Rico 235 F2d 347 (1 st Cir 1956) 38

Asociacion de Educacion Privada de Puerto Rico v Garcia-Padilla 490 F3d 1 (1st Cir 2007) 74

Atwater v City ofSarasota 38 So2d 681 (Fla 1949) 68

Ayotte v Planned Parenthood ofN New Eng 546 US 320 (2006) 70

Beachfront Entertainment Inc v Town ofSullivan s Island 379 Sc 602 666 SE2d 912 (2008) 66

Central Hudson Gas amp Elec Corp v Pub Servo Comm n 447 US 557 (1980) passim

City ofProvidence V Employee Retirement Bd ofCity ofProvidence

Board ofTrustees ofthe State University ofNew York v Fox 492 US 469 (1989) 45

Brown v Gardner 513 US 115 (1994) 65

Bruckshaw v Paolino 557 A2d 1221 (R 1989) 63

Celotex Corp v Catrett 477 US 317 (1986) 28 29

Cipollone v Liggett Group Inc 505 US 504 (1992) 485052

City ofErie V Paps AM Inc 529 US 277 (2000) 40

749 A2d 1088 (R 2000) 71

City ofTucson V Grezafji 200 Ariz 13023 P3d 675 (2001) 66

IV


Coast Cigarettes Sales Inc v Mayor and City Council ofLong Branch 121 NJSuper 439 445-47 (1972) 67

Defenders ofAnimals v Department ofEnvMgt 553 A2d 541 (RI1989) 71

Discount Tobacco City amp Lottery Inc v United States 674 F3d 509 (6th Cir 2012) 41

El Marocco Club Inc v Richardson 746 A2d 1228 (R 2000) 63

FCC v Beach Communications Inc 508 US 307 (1993) 60

FDA v Brown amp Williamson Tobacco Corp 529 US 120 (2000) 7

Florida Bar v Went For It Inc 515 US 618 (1995) 40

Foothills Brewing Concern Inc v City ofGreenville 377 SC 355 660 SE2d 264 (2008) 66

Free Enter Fund v Pub Co Accounting Oversight Bd _ US _ 130 S Ct 3138 (2010) 70

Gatley v Commonwealth ofMassachusetts 2 F3d 1221 (1 st Cir 1993) 73

Gun Owners Action League Inc v Swift 284 F3d 198 (1 st Cir 2002) 3740

Hourihan v Town ofMiddletown 723 A2d 790 (RI 1998) 65

JeffAnthony Props v Zoning Bd ofReview 853 A2d 1226 (RI2004)72

John Doe No1 v Reed US _ 130 SCt 2811 (2010) 29

Jones v Vilsack 272 F3d 1030 (8th Cir 2001) 56

KittelY Motorcycle Inc v Rowe 320 F3d 42 47 (1 st Cir 2003) 37

Landrigan v McElroy 457 A2d 1056 (RI 1983) 71

Lexington-Fayette Urban Cty 131 SW3d 745 (Ky 2004)66

Lorillard Tobacco Co v Reilly 533 US 525 (2001) passim

Maryland v Louisiana 451 US 725 746 (1981) 48

Matsushita Elec Indus Co v Zenith Radio Corp 475 US 574 (1986) 29

Minnetonka Electric Co v Village ofGolden Valley 273 Minn 301

v


141 NW2d 138 (1966) 68

Morales v Trans World Airlines Inc 504 US 374 (1992) 74

Narragansett Indian Tribe ofR v State ofRI 296 FSupp2d 153 (DRI 2003)22

National Amusements Inc v Town ofDedham 43 F3d 731 (1 51 Cir 2002) 46

National Assoc ofTobacco Outlets Inc v City ofWorcester 2012 WL 1071804 (DMass 2012) 34

National Meat Ass no V Harris US _ 132 SCt 965 (2012) 58

National Paint amp Coatings Assoc v City ofChicago 45 F3d 1124 (7th Cir 1995) 35

Newport Amusement Co v Maher 166 A2d 216 (RI 1960) 67

Nugent v City ofEast Providence 103 RI 518238 A2d 758 (1968) 67

NYC CLASH Inc v City ofNew York 315 FSupp2d 461 (SDNY 2004)6166

OMelveny amp Myers v FDIC 512 US 79 85 (1994) 65

Palmer v Liggett Group Inc 825 F2d 620 (1st Cir 1987) 50

Pankos Diner Corp v Nassau County Legislature 321 FSupp2d 520 (EDNY 2003) 73

Palombo v Providence Housing Board ofReview 92 RI 421 5424 169 A2d 613 (1961) 65

Phillip Morris Inc v Harshbarger 159 F3d 670 (151 Cir 1989) 73

Planned Parenthood League ofMass v Bellotti 641 F2d 1006 (1st Cir 1981) 74

Providence City Council V Cianci 650 A2d 499 (1994) 71

Reno v ACLU 521 US 844 (1997) 62

Rhode Island Hospitality Assn v City ofProvidence 775 FSupp2d 416 (DRI 2011) affd 667 F3d 17 (lSI Cir 2011) 3749

Roark amp Hardee LP v City ofAustin 522 F3d 533 (51h Cir 2008) 60

Rockwood V City ofBurlington 21 F Supp 2d 411 (D Vt 1998) 56

VI


- -

Rubin v Coors Brewing Co 514 US 476 (1995) 34

Rumsfeld v FAIR 547 US 47 (2006)39

Sorrell v IMS Health Inc US 131 S Ct 2653 (2011) 3435

S Ogden CVS Store Inc v Ambach 493 F Supp 374 (SDNY 1980) 34

Thompson v W States Med Ctr 535 US 357 (2002) 34

Town ofE Greenwich v ONeil 617 A2d 104 (R 1992) 64

Town ofWarren v Thornton-Whitehouse 740 A2d 1255 (R 1999) 63

Town of Westerly v Bradley 877 A2d 601 (R 2005) 72

Tri-Nel Mgmt Inc v Board ofHealth ofBarnstable 433 Mass 217 741 NE2d 37 (2001) 66 73

Turner Broadcasting System Inc v Fcc 520 US 180 (1997) 40

United States v Philip Morris USA Inc 499 FSupp2d 127 (DDC 2006) affd in part vacated in impertinent part and remanded 566 F3d 1095 (DC Cir 2009) petitions for certfiled (2010) passim

URI Student Senate V Town ofNarragansett 631 F3d 1 (1 sl Cir 2011) 6061

us Smokeless Tobacco Mfg CO V City ofNew York No 09 Civ 10511 2011 WL 5569431 (SDNY Nov 152011) 28 58 66

us Smokeless Tobacco Manufacturing Co LLC v City ofNew York 703 FSupp2d 329 (SDNY 2010) passim

United States V 0 Brien 391 US 367 (1968) passim

United States V Stevens _ US _ l30 SCt 1577 (2010) 529

Va Bd ofPharmacy V Va Citizens Consumer Council Inc 425 US 748 (1976) 34

Wine and Spirits Retailers Inc v Rhode Island 418 F3d 36 (1st Cir 2005) 30 35

Wirzburger v Galvin 412 F3d 271 (2005) 40

Vll


















































































TABLE OF CONTENTS

I TABLE OF LEGAL AUTHORITIES iv

II INTRODUCTION 1

III SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 3

A The Ordinances do not violate Plaintiffs First Amendment rights 3

B The Ordinances are not pre-empted under either the FCLAA or the FSPTCA 4

C The Flavored Tobacco Ordinance does not violate the void for vagueness doctrine 5

D Defendants have not violated Plaintiffs rights under 42 USC sect 1983 and the City Council has not violated the OMA5

E The Price Ordinance is not preempted under state law and the Ordinances do not violate separation of powers under state law 6

F Plaintiffs are not entitled to a preliminary injunction 6

IV FACTS 7

A The Public Health Threat 7

B Tobacco and youth8

C The Tobacco Companies Use ofPrice Discounting To Target Young Persons 12

D The Industrys Use of Smokeless Tobacco and Flavored Tobacco Products to Target Youth 18

E Governmental Regulation of Tobacco 21

1 Federal Law and Regulation 21

2 Rhode Islands Regulation of Tobacco22

3 The Providence Ordinances Being Challenged 24 a The Price Ordinance 26 b The Flavored Tobacco Ordinance 27


V LEGAL ARGUMENT 28













11















VI CONCLUSION76

111



A Cases Page(s)




446 Mass 310 844 NE2d 231 (2005) 66
















749 A2d 1088 (R 2000) 71


IV
























v


141 NW2d 138 (1966) 68

















Reno v ACLU 521 US 844 (1997) 62




VI


- -




















Vll


















































































V LEGAL ARGUMENT 28













11















VI CONCLUSION76

111



A Cases Page(s)




446 Mass 310 844 NE2d 231 (2005) 66
















749 A2d 1088 (R 2000) 71


IV
























v


141 NW2d 138 (1966) 68

















Reno v ACLU 521 US 844 (1997) 62




VI


- -




















Vll































































































VI CONCLUSION76

111



A Cases Page(s)




446 Mass 310 844 NE2d 231 (2005) 66
















749 A2d 1088 (R 2000) 71


IV
























v


141 NW2d 138 (1966) 68

















Reno v ACLU 521 US 844 (1997) 62




VI


- -




















Vll



















































































A Cases Page(s)




446 Mass 310 844 NE2d 231 (2005) 66
















749 A2d 1088 (R 2000) 71


IV
























v


141 NW2d 138 (1966) 68

















Reno v ACLU 521 US 844 (1997) 62




VI


- -




















Vll








































































































v


141 NW2d 138 (1966) 68

















Reno v ACLU 521 US 844 (1997) 62




VI


- -




















Vll


















































































141 NW2d 138 (1966) 68

















Reno v ACLU 521 US 844 (1997) 62




VI


- -




















Vll


















































































- -




















Vll


























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Documents

v.c. The 2009 Amendment to the Act's preemption provision unmistakably demonstrates Congress' intent to narrowly limit the scope offederal preemption .....54 2. The Flavored Tobacco