High Court Ruling Allows Ban on Cigarette, Beer Billboards

In another setback for the tobacco industry, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for Baltimore to enforce a citywide ban on billboards advertising cigarettes or beer.

The move, while not a final ruling on the matter, is likely to encourage other cities, including Los Angeles, to ban public ads for tobacco products. It also suggests that the Clinton administration may not face a 1st Amendment barrier in seeking to restrict cigarette advertising directed at minors.

Last week, a federal judge in North Carolina ruled that the Food and Drug Administration has the authority to regulate nicotine as a drug but it does not have the authority under the statute in question to regulate advertising. Administration officials have said that they are confident the government will prevail on appeal and obtain the authority to restrict advertising as proposed.

The Baltimore case has been seen as a test of whether such restrictions could survive a 1st Amendment challenge.

Reacting to the court’s decision, Los Angeles City Councilman Mike Feuer said that he will introduce a motion today seeking a citywide ban on billboard ads for alcohol and cigarettes.

“Billboard advertising of alcohol and tobacco products is a constant blight that bombards drivers and pedestrians throughout Los Angeles,” Feuer said. “Unlike advertising in other media, the public has no choice in being confronted with these messages.”

The action would follow a council vote last week to join a class-action suit that seeks restitution from R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. for profits from the sale of all cigarettes sold as a result of its Joe Camel advertising campaign.

The council and other plaintiffs argue that the advertisement unlawfully tries to persuade teenagers to smoke.

In 1994, the Baltimore City Council passed the ordinance in an effort to shield young people, especially in the inner city, from the pervasive influence of giant billboards touting tobacco and alcohol. Industry groups and advertisers quickly challenged the measure on 1st Amendment grounds.

Last summer, their chances looked good. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned a Rhode Island state law that banned the advertising of beer prices and stressed that ads for lawful products are generally protected as free speech.

Nonetheless, the federal appellate court in Richmond, Va., upheld the Baltimore ordinance as constitutional. Unlike the Rhode Island law, which affected adults, “Baltimore’s interest is to protect children,” the appeals court said.

This decision was doubly good news for the Clinton administration. First, the lower court agreed that the government has a special interest in protecting children, as FDA officials asserted in their proposal. Second, the appeals court has jurisdiction in North Carolina and will hear the appeal from last week’s ruling.

The Supreme Court, in its ruling Monday, did not hand down a written ruling on the 1st Amendment issue at stake in the Baltimore case (Penn Advertising vs. Baltimore, 96-1429) but simply refused to take up the matter. Thus, Monday’s ruling left open the prospect that the high court will address the issue in a future case.

Times staff writer Hugo Martin contributed to this story from Los Angeles.