Glenn v. Liggett was a landmark Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 preempted state common law tort claims against cigarette manufacturers. The case was brought by the family of Rose Cipollone, who had died of lung cancer after smoking cigarettes for over 30 years. The Cipollone family sued Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company, claiming that the company had failed to warn them of the dangers of smoking. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 preempted the Cipollone family's state common law tort claims. The Court reasoned that the Act's comprehensive regulation of cigarette labeling and advertising was intended to be the exclusive means of regulating the industry, and that allowing state common law tort claims would undermine the Act's purpose. The Court also held that the Act did not preempt the Cipollone family's claims for breach of express warranty and negligent misrepresentation. The decision in Glenn v. Liggett established that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 preempted state common law tort claims against cigarette manufacturers. The decision has had a significant impact on the tobacco industry, as it has limited the ability of individuals to sue tobacco companies for damages related to smoking-related illnesses.

In the Supreme Court case of Glenn v. Liggett, Justice Douglas delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision to deny recovery for damages caused by cigarette smoking was wrong and should be overturned. He noted that cigarettes are not harmless products and can cause serious health problems, including cancer. Furthermore, he argued that tobacco companies have known about these risks for decades but failed to warn consumers or take any action to reduce them. In addition, Justice Douglas pointed out that there is evidence suggesting a causal link between smoking and certain diseases such as lung cancer; thus it would be reasonable for smokers who develop such illnesses to seek compensation from those responsible for their suffering. Finally, he asserted that allowing individuals harmed by cigarettes access to courts would provide an incentive for manufacturers of dangerous products like tobacco to act responsibly in order protect public safety.