Federal laws about cigarette labels don't preempt state fraud claims, the Supreme Court says in the case about the lightness of "light" cigarettes.

The case -- Altria Group, Inc. v. Good -- was just announced. It's 5-4, with the majority opinion written by Justice Stevens and the dissenting opinion written by Justice Thomas. There's no need to spell out the rest of the 5 and 4. If you care enough to want to know, you already know.

I'll have something on the opinions soon.

ADDED: Following the plurality opinion in a 1992 case (Cipollone), the majority said that preemption by the labeling law depended on whether the state law claim was predicated on a "requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health … with respect to … advertising or promotion." And the fraud claims are premised on a duty not to deceive. The dissenters didn't see a basis for distinguishing fraud claims from the failure-to-warn claims that Cipollone said were preempted and wanted "to look at the factual basis of a complaint to determine if a claim imposes a requirement based on smoking and health."

This is one of those cases where state law is preserved, yet no one extols the values of federalism. No one even says the word "federalism," as the liberal Justices decide in favor state power, and the conservative Justices worry about "non-uniformity." The tort plaintiffs will be able to go forward with their case, and the cigarette companies must take their lumps.