Competitive Enterprise Institute v. O'Neill

Type

Opinion of the Court

Per curiam

Yes — no individual author

Filed

May 10, 2002

Case

Competitive Enterprise Institute v. O'Neill

Case status

Decided

Source The opinion is per curiam: issued in the name of the court, with no individual author. This is a fact about the opinion, not missing data.

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by counsel. It is ORDERED that the judgment from which this appeal has been taken be affirmed. Competitive Enterprise Institute and Consumer Alert (collectively, CEI) appeal the district court’s June 18, 2001 opinion and order granting summary judgment to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and dismissing CEI’s claims without prejudice. See Joint Appendix (JA) 110-14. CEI had filed suit against the ATF, alleging that since 1993 the ATF has maintained a “de facto ban” on “truthful and non-misleading ... statements on alcoholic beverage labels and advertisements ... concerning the health benefits of moderate consumption” of such beverages. Id. at 22, 26-27. CEI had claimed, inter alia, that the “ban” violates (1) the “First Amendment rights of both speakers ... and listeners,” id. at 26, and (2) the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, ATF regulations and the Administrative Procedure Act. Citing the two-part standard of Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 , 87 S.Ct. 1507 , 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967), the district cou…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.