WASHINGTON -- More than 45 million Americans are smokers, and nearly 85 percent of them buy ''light'' cigarettes such as Marlboro Lights, which are advertised as having lower tar and nicotine.

The Supreme Court, on the opening day of its term, heard arguments Monday on whether the tobacco industry can be held liable for allegedly perpetrating a massive fraud on the smoking public.

In recent decades, most smokers switched to ''light'' cigarettes, believing they posed less of a health danger. But studies have shown this common-sense view is wrong. Although machine tests showed ''light'' cigarettes emitted less tar when burned, smokers inhale about the same amount of tar when they puff on a ''light'' cigarette, the studies found.

The tobacco industry faces more than 30 class-action lawsuits from smokers and ex-smokers who seek billions of dollars in damages and claim they were fooled by the marketing of light and low-tar cigarettes.

DISMISSAL REQUEST

But the justices sounded receptive to an argument from the cigarette makers that all these lawsuits should be thrown out because they conflict with the federal law that requires warning labels on cigarette packs.

That law shielded tobacco companies from any other ''requirement respecting the promotion of cigarettes based on smoking and health,'' Washington attorney Theodore B. Olson told the court. The former U.S. solicitor general was representing the Altria Group, the parent company of Philip Morris and the maker of Marlboro Lights.

His argument tracked a recent trend in the high court holding that products subjected to federal regulations are shielded from lawsuits filed under state law. In nearly every state, consumers who say they were fooled or cheated by a product maker can sue for damages.

In the case before the court, several smokers from Maine sued Altria under their state's law against ''unfair and deceptive'' trade practices. They alleged they were misled by the marketing of ''light'' cigarettes.

Olson said their claim should be tossed out because ''Congress wanted one uniform source of regulation of advertising of cigarettes,'' not different rules established by states and jury verdicts.

LAWMAKERS' INTENT

But a lawyer for the consumers said Congress did not intend to wipe out lawsuits involving deceptive marketing. Lawmakers who set the warning labels in 1969 had ''no intention whatsoever to immunize cigarette makers for false statements'' about their products, David C. Frederick, told the justices.

At one point, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. suggested the real culprit was the Federal Trade Commission. This agency oversees the warning labels on cigarettes, he noted, and it allowed the cigarette makers to tout data from the machine tests indicating ''light'' cigarettes emitted less tar.

Also Monday, the justices turned down without comment hundreds of appeal petitions that had piled up over the summer. In doing so, they let stand several noteworthy rulings.

In Arizona, an anti-abortion group had won a free-speech right to obtain license plates with the message ''Choose Life.'' The state permits private groups to obtain special plates, so long as they meet several basic criteria, and because the anti-abortion group qualified, its message should not be censored, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in Stanton v. Arizona Life Coalition.

The court also let stand rulings allowing juries in Louisiana and Oregon to convict criminals with verdicts that are not unanimous.

In the past, the court said the Constitution does not require unanimous verdicts in all cases.

They refused to reconsider that issue in the case of a Louisiana murderer in Lee v. Louisiana.

Join the discussion

Note: If this is your first time using our NEW commenting system, you will have to LOG OUT and then LOG BACK IN.

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. In order to post comments, you must be a registered user of MiamiHerald.com. Your username will show along with the comments you post. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

     Showing: Oldest first Newest first Most-recommended first Least-recommended first

@Nyx.AuthorDisplayName@ wrote on @Nyx.PostedAtTime@:

@Nyx.CommentBody@

@Nyx.Recommender@ @Nyx.AbuseReporter@