Bonta

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Bonta

Good Law
272 F. Supp. 2d 1085·2003 WL 21708208
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 24, 2003CIV. S-03-659 LKK/GGHCalifornia14,516 words

Opinion

Opinion

Karlton, J.

ORDER

Two tobacco companies bring suit against officials of California’s Department of Health Services. They challenge the state’s anti-tobacco advertisements, which are funded through a special surtax on wholesale tobacco sales. The tobacco companies claim that the surtax forces them to fund ads with which they disagree, and that this violates their right to free speech under the First Amendment. They also complain that the ads interfere with their right to trial by jury under the Seventh Amendment and unfairly stigmatize them in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The tobacco companies have moved for a preliminary injunction and the state has moved to dismiss the complaint. I decide the matter on the basis of the papers and pleadings filed herein, and after oral argument.

I.

BACKGROUND

A. PROPOSITION 99: THE TOBACCO TAX AND HEALTH PROTECTION ACT

In 1988, the voters of California approved Proposition 99, a statewide ballot initiative also known as the “Tobacco Tax and Health Protection Act of 1988” (“the Act”). Cal. Rev. & Tax Code §§ 30121-30130 . The Act imposes a $0.25 per-pack surtax on all wholesale cigarette sales in California known as…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.