Food and Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation
529 U.S. 120 · Decided March 21, 2000 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
Food and Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation was decided on March 21, 2000 by a vote of 5–4. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Consumer protection” in the Economic Activity area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 529 U.S. 120 · 120 S. Ct. 1291 · 146 L. Ed. 2d 121 · 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2195
- Docket number
- 98-1152
- Decided
- March 21, 2000
- Argued
- December 1, 1999
- Court era
- Rehnquist Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority opinion
- Sandra Day O'Connor
- Opinion assigned by
- William H. Rehnquist
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Consumer protection
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Legal provision
- Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
- Type of law
- Federal statute
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Conservative what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist | Majority | |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Dissent | |
| Justice Sandra Day O'Connor | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Antonin Scalia | Majority | |
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy | Majority | |
| Justice David H. Souter | Dissent | |
| Justice Clarence Thomas | Majority | |
| Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg | Dissent | |
| Justice Stephen G. Breyer | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
Full case caption
Food and Drug Administration, et al. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, et al.
SCDB identifiers: case 1999-038, docket 1999-038-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Consumer protection”
- TRW Inc. v. Adelaide Andrews
- David R. Beach v. Ocwen Federal Bank
- National Credit Union Administration v. First National Bank & Trust Co.
- Household Credit Services, Inc. and Mbna America Bank, N. A. v. Sharon R. Pfennig
- Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Bradley Nigh
- George W. Heintz v. Darlene Jenkins
Cases on the same legal provision: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
- Buckman Company v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lora Lohr et Vir
- Wyeth v. Diana Levine
- Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. v. Karen L. Bartlett
- Young v. Community Nutrition Institute
- Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht
Same Term, same area (Economic Activity)
- Chad Weisgram v. Marley Company
- Hunt-Wesson, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board of CaliforniaLaw held unconstitutional
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc.
- Public Lands Council v. Bruce Babbitt
- Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company v. Union Planters Bank, N. A.
- Thomas E. Raleigh v. Illinois Department of Revenue
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error