A.B. Coker Co., Inc. v. Charles C. Foti
- the complaint (August 2005)
- defendant’s motion to dismiss (October 2005)
- plaintiff’s response to defendant’s motion to dismiss. (December 2005)
- defendant’s reply (January 2006)
- plaintiff’s motion to supplement their memorandum with a recently-filed document in another case (July 2006)
- defendant’s joint brief seeking cert. in Grand River case (July 2006)
- order granting the motion (July 2006)
- magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (September 2006)
- judge’s ruling on motion to dismiss (November 2006)
- judge’s order dismissing Tenth Amendment claim (November 2006)
The Competitive Enterprise Institute is waging a legal fight against the corrupt $240 billion tobacco deal signed in 1998 between 46 state attorneys general and major tobacco companies. The lawsuit, filed in federal district court in Louisiana on August 2, 2005, alleges that the tobacco “Master Settlement Agreement” (MSA) is unconstitutional because it violates the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State. ( U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10)
The Compact Clause was designed to prevent states from collectively encroaching on federal power or ganging up on other states. The tobacco settlement does both. The MSA set up a national government/tobacco cartel that harmed consumers and small businesses by increasing cigarette prices and restricting competition. It was a backroom deal between state governments and big tobacco companies. Not surprisingly, the winners in the settlement were sitting at the negotiating table.
State attorneys general became breadwinners for their states, thrust themselves into the limelight, and expanded their own power. Trial lawyers associated with the state lawsuits won an estimated $ 13 billion windfall that, in some cases, amounted to tens of thousands of dollars per hour of work. Health activists won some long-sought restrictions on cigarette marketing and a new, tobacco-funded anti-smoking group, the American Legacy Foundation.
Tobacco companies were big winners, too. They ended the state lawsuits and secured the states as allies in protecting their own market share and financial well-being. In short, once the industry decided to settle, the former adversaries–attorneys general and major tobacco companies–shared similar interests: to keep major companies solvent and thriving.
The losers in the settlement agreement were the taxpayers and small businesses excluded from the negotiations. The direct financial burden (higher cigarette prices) befell smokers, many of them low-wage earners. Small tobacco companies were saddled with annual escrow payments designed to “level the playing field,” followed in subsequent years by a growing list of onerous mandates. Despite the fact that a massive new tax and regulatory regime was forged, other parties impacted by the settlement terms– average citizens, lawmakers, small businesses — were never given an opportunity to participate.
CEI hopes to strike at the sort of attorney general activism and abuse of power that the tobacco settlement falsely legitimized. In the lawsuit, CEI represents a tobacco distributor; two small tobacco manufacturers, a tobacco store, and an individual smoker. The defendant in the case is the attorney general of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr.
