On March 20, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a California court decision that imposed a massive tort liability award against the manufacturer of a “light” cigarette on the ground that the public believes that “light” cigarettes pose less of a health risk than they actually do. The order, issued without comment, was a setback for WLF, which filed a brief urging the Court to review the case. WLF argued that such tort claims are preempted by federal law because cigarette manufacturers already display all the health and safety warnings mandated by the federal government. WLF argued that Congress already determined, when it adopted the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, the health warnings that manufacturers must include in advertising and on their labeling. WLF argued that States should not be permitted to second-guess that congressional determination by allowing tort suits that would require manufacturers to impose additional warning requirements.