United States Supreme Court Reviews Eighth Circuit's Ruling on the Federal Officer Removal Opinion
The United States Supreme Court heard oral argument (transcript here) yesterday in Watson v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., No. 05-1284. From the invaluable SCOTUSblog, the argument preview is here and the blog coverage roundup is here. This is a case about federal removal jurisdiction; a good description of the case and question presented is from this Washington Post article (which is quoted in a post at the Mass Tort Blog):
The cigarette case, Watson v. Philip Morris (05-1284), comes from Arkansas, where consumers alleged that the company had violated the state's deceptive-advertising law with claims about its "light" cigarettes. Similar class-action lawsuits have been filed around the country.But Phillip Morris, whose parent company is now known as Altria Group Inc., was successful in having the case transferred to federal courts, saying that its advertising is regulated by the Federal Trade Commission, and that made it a "person acting under" a federal officer.
The Bush administration said it disagreed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruling upholding the lower court's decision. Nevertheless, Solicitor General Paul D. Clement had recommended the Supreme Court not take the case, saying it did not warrant the court's review.
Those who sued said the move to federal court denies the right of states to be the primary forum for adjudicating state laws.
The Eighth Circuit opinion affirms the unpublished opinion of United States District Judge G. Thomas Eisele for the Eastern District of Arkansas . The case originated in Pulaski County Circuit Court, Sixth Division (Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox, presiding).
Local coverage seems somewhat limited: Channel 7.
