The coverage of the latest Philip Morris story causes more confusion than it solves. Reuters does a slightly better job than the AP.

The Supreme Court has let stand a ruling of the Illinois Supreme Court — a ruling that threw out a verdict against Philip Morris over “light” cigarettes. “Light” refers to flavor, not tar, nicotine or any other health-affecting ingredient, and the plaintiffs argued the company was misleading on that front.

It’s understandable to read the label that way. Light beer, for example, tends to be lower in calories and alcohol in addition to flavor. So the smokers sued.

But the Illinois court was right to throw out the verdict. The government specifically allows tobacco companies to label their cigarettes “light.” As I’ve previously argued about guns and prescription drugs, when an industry is highly regulated, staying within the law should constitute a defense against lawsuits (though it doesn’t).

What the AP doesn’t emphasize enough is that this is not really a Supreme Court ruling; it’s simply a decision to let the previous ruling stand. What happened was that they “denied certiorari” (in a long list of orders). This just means they decided not to hear the case, either because they agreed with the current ruling or because they thought other cases were more worth their time.

According to Wikipedia:

“[T]he legal effect of the Supreme Court’s denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is commonly misunderstood as meaning that the Supreme Court approves the decision of a lower court. However, such a denial ‘imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case…’ Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995).”

The justices did not issue a written explanation or record a vote. It’s true to a degree they “sided with Philip Morris,” but there is no binding precedent laid down in terms of future lawsuits.

Docket here.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.