In the 1991 case of Thomas Cipollone, individually and as executor of the estate of Rose D. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., et al., Thomas Cipollone sued several cigarette manufacturers including Liggett Group on behalf of his deceased mother who had died from lung cancer after years of smoking their products. He alleged that they were liable for her death because they failed to adequately warn consumers about the health risks associated with smoking and also conspired to withhold information about these dangers from public knowledge. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the tobacco companies stating that federal law preempted state law claims based on a failure to warn theory since Congress had already legislated warning requirements for cigarette packaging and advertising through its enactment of Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA). However, it allowed other claims such as fraudulent misrepresentation or conspiracy not related directly to warnings or advertisements could proceed under state law.

In the dissenting opinion for Thomas Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., Justice Scalia argued that federal law did not preempt state-law damage actions. He believed that Congress had no intention of protecting cigarette manufacturers from liability for damages resulting from their failure to warn consumers about the dangers of smoking or their deceptive advertising practices. Instead, he suggested that Congress intended only to prevent states from imposing additional warning requirements on cigarette packaging beyond those mandated by federal law. Therefore, according to Scalia's interpretation, while states could not require additional warnings on cigarette packages themselves, they were free to allow lawsuits against tobacco companies based on general principles of tort law if these companies failed in their duty to adequately inform consumers about risks associated with smoking.