Cigarette makers argue that the advertising limits violate constitutional free-speech protections and are pre-empted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.

The Supreme Court could use the dispute to consider giving commercial speech broader protection against government regulation. In past years, the justices have leaned toward giving commercial speech the same constitutional protection as political or artistic expression.

Last year, Massachusetts implemented a rule banning all outdoor cigarette advertising within 1,000 feet of any elementary or secondary school or public playground. In addition, cigarette ads inside retail stores must be placed higher than children's eye level, and out of customers' reach.

The cigarette companies involved in the case are Lorillard Tobacco Co., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., and U.S. Tobacco Co.

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Your Turn! Post a public comment (read guidelines):

Name:
Comment: (limit 200 words)
Enter this word (help):	Change

GUIDELINES: 
To keep this feature useful for everyone, please:

1. Keep it clean, courteous, focused, and on-topic. Comments are meant for thoughtful discussion of the article published above.
   
   
2. Do not post personal requests for help or general promotions for your organization (Get help).
   
   
3. Proof your comments carefully, use good spelling and punctuation, and don't use ALL CAPS. Comments are published immediately and cannot be edited.

Deceptive, slanderous and commercially-motivated posts are prohibited. We reserve the right to remove comments not conforming to these guidelines. (Report a comment).

Have questions or feedback? Contact us.