Court of Petty Appeals: United States v. Cig Pro
United States
v.
Cig Pro
79 U.Va. 5 (2026)
Koeppel, J., delivers the opinion of the Court, in which Berklich and Wu, C.J.J., and Boatright, Lozada, Lawson, and Vanger J.J. join. Moore, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Koeppel, J., delivers the opinion of the Court.
Before this Court of Petty Appeals, the United States of America brings suit against Cig Pro, alleging violation of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules regulating required warnings for cigarette packages and advertisements. See Required Warnings for Cigarette Packages and Advertisements, 21 C.F.R. § 1141 (2020).
This Court finds Cig Pro to be in willful violation of 21 C.F.R. § 1141.10, and orders suspension from the North Grounds Softball League (NGSL) pending compliance with FDA rules. Moreover, this Court orders NGSL to vacate all Cig Pro wins and award one win to Ad Jock. This Court lastly orders Cig Pro to pay civil money penalties in the amount of one new flat-screen television for the Virginia Law Weekly office.
Facts:
Cig Pro is a softball team currently competing in the North Grounds Softball League. Cig Pro’s jerseys closely resemble the exterior design of Marlboro Red cigarettes.[1]
This resemblance is not mere fortuity; rather, it is an intentional promotion of and reference to the consumption of tobacco products.
Cig Pro’s jerseys do not contain any warnings required for cigarette packages and advertisements. Rather, the jersey contains each individual team member’s name and number, and a “warning” satirizing FDA rules regulating required warnings for cigarette packages and advertisements.
The FDA, upon receiving anonymous complaints, initiated a formal investigation of Cig Pro in April 2026. In May 2026, the FDA sent a warning letter to Cig Pro, informing the captains that failure to comply with FDA regulations regarding required warnings for cigarette packages and advertisements would result in potential civil money penalties and prosecution. The FDA subsequently referred the matter to the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the DOJ brought the current suit on behalf of the United States against Cig Pro.[2]
Discussion
The United States alleges that Cig Pro’s jerseys constitute an “advertisement” for purposes of 21 C.F.R. § 1141.10. Pursuant to § 1141.10, it is unlawful for any manufacturer, distributor, or retailer of cigarettes to advertise or cause to be advertised within the United States any cigarette unless each advertisement bears a required warning in accordance with section 4 of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. For print advertisements and other advertisements with a visual component, the required warning must appear directly on the advertisement and must comprise at least 20 percent of the area of the advertisement in a conspicuous and prominent format and location at the top of each advertisement within the trim area.
Cig Pro contends that they do not fit the classification of “manufacturer, distributor, or retailer of cigarettes” under FDA regulation 21 C.F.R. § 1141.10. This Court is unconvinced by the assertion and remains committed to the bit. See Rule 3, Petty Rules of Civil Procedure, Revised Ed. (2024). Furthermore, this Court is sufficiently convinced that the Cig Pro jersey constitutes an “advertisement” for cigarettes and tobacco products, and is willing to accept for “the bit” that Cig Pro is a distributor of cigarettes for purposes of FDA regulations.[3] However, it would be too absurd, even for this Court, to conclude that Cig Pro is a manufacturer or retailer of cigarettes.
Cig Pro asserts two affirmative defenses to violating required warnings for cigarette packages and advertisements: (1) a history and traditions defense and (2) “the Court of Petty Appeals lost in softball, and we are now getting sued by the federal government” defense, better known as a “Vindictive COPA” defense.
We engage in a comprehensive analysis of each affirmative defense.
History and Traditions Defense:
First, Cig Pro presents a history and traditions defense to the Government’s allegations.
Cig Pro challenges that its team members are Yeoman farmers and that unrestricted tobacco cultivation and advertising constitute a customary practice and right moored in the history and tradition of Central Virginia.
Cig Pro points to the storied history of tobacco cultivation in Virginia. This Court must concede that tobacco has been cultivated in Virginia by Yeoman farmers since 1610 and its cultivation constitutes a historical practice. See G. Melvin Herndon, Tobacco in Colonial Virginia (1957). It is said that “[t]he story of tobacco in Virginia [began] with the ingenious John Rolfe” and can be traced to Jamestown. Id. But the history of tobacco cultivation did not begin and end with John Rolfe and Jamestown. In 1731, Virginia Governor William Gooch established a tobacco inspection system, which remained in effect until the American Revolution. See Stacy L. Lorenz, "To Do Justice to His Majesty, the Merchant and the Planter": Governor William Gooch and the Virginia Tobacco Inspection Act of 1730, 108 The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 345, 346 (2000). Thus, regulations of tobacco cultivation and advertising are justified by a long history and tradition of such regulations.
Nevertheless, this Court fails to see how any history or tradition of tobacco cultivation would exempt Cig Pro from FDA regulations mandating warnings for cigarette packages and advertisements. The Court can also point to a history and tradition of beekeeping and bee-hunting among Yeoman farmers in Colonial Virginia. See Thomas J. Wertenbaker, The Planters of Colonial Virginia 102 (1922). It was said that Yeoman farmer, Mr. George Pelton, made a product of £30 from his bees. Id. There were reportedly many swarms of wild bees in the woods of Colonial Virginia, which yielded delicious returns for colonial bee-hunters. Id. It was also said that honey was abundant in Colonial Virginia, and “there were few householders who did not have hives under the eaves of their outbuildings.” Id. Does this well-documented history and tradition of bee-hunting in Colonial Virginia exempt this Court from Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) bee-hunting regulations?[4] See e.g., Bees, Beekeeping Byproducts, and Beekeeping Equipment, 7 C.F.R. § 322 (2004). This Court thinks not.
Therefore, the Court holds that Cig Pro’s history and traditions defense must not prevail.
Vindictive COPA Defense:
Next, Cig Pro asserts a “Vindictive COPA” defense. Cig Pro alleges that they defeated my learned brother, Justice Moore’s, softball team, Ad Jock, and he concocted this FDA investigation to assuage his bruised ego. Cig Pro boldly avers that Justice Moore filed multiple anonymous complaints to the FDA, as a result of this loss, and therefore the Government’s enforcement action must be dismissed.
This Court is unconvinced that, even if Justice Moore hypothetically concocted this FDA investigation, filed multiple anonymous complaints with the FDA, and authored a concurrence to this opinion, this constitutes a “vindictive COPA.”
Despite the appearance, Justice Moore exercises no authority in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or Department of Justice. Therefore, it cannot be logically asserted that this enforcement action is a “vindictive COPA.” To establish prima facie vindictiveness, a defendant must prove that a prosecuting authority or judicial officer sought more serious punishment after a defendant exercised constitutionally-protected rights. Cig Pro fails to establish such vindictiveness.
Never before in this venerable Court’s history has a party alleged vindictiveness in this Court’s adjudication of petty appeals. This Court is shocked to its core by such a bald assertion of impropriety and will defend itself against any attack by its detractors.
In this Court’s defense, we hold today and for eternity that the Court of Petty Appeals possesses sovereign immunity and may not be maliciously defamed. Cig Pro, nor any future party, may not claim vindictiveness as a defense, and must respect this Court’s sovereign authority at UVA Law.
Conclusion
This Court finds Cig Pro to be in willful violation of 21 C.F.R. § 1141.10. This Court orders three remedies: (1) this Court orders Cig Pro’s suspension from the North Grounds Softball League (NGSL) pending compliance with FDA rules; (2) this Court orders NGSL to vacate all Cig Pro wins, and award one win to Ad Jock; and (3) this Court orders Cig Pro to pay civil money penalties in the amount of one new flat-screen television for the Virginia Law Weekly office.
Moore, J., concurring.
The above, and in the format of the paper, the to-the-left, opinion is of such unparalleled and unperpendiculared quality that the brother of the writing justice of the same has nothing to add.
The same digresses. The aforementioned opinion is but the latest in a heartening trend of the Court of Petty Appeals taking nearly as long-term a perspective as that of the Moliomo in the cases of Jax-Ur and Orn-Zu. Robert Bernstein, Clark Kent's Super-Father, 289 Adventure Comics 1 (1961); Cary Bates, The Creature That Charmed Children!, 505 Action Comics (1980). Just as the astute and possessing-of-þolemódness justice of the Court cast a sentence of a millennium in Law Students on the Brink v. Grim Reaper, the justice in this instance (not the instance of Law Students on the Brink v. Grim Reaper but the instance of the opinion of the majority in the instant case) has onfundon a foundation in law going back to 1610. 79 U.Va. 2 (2026). The only query which could be inquired of the justice of the same would be as to the reason the inquiry of history stopped at a point in possession of such arbitrarity. In fact, and in books, the law of bee-keeping extends far beyond the narrow historical scope cited previously. Indeed, while “[n]either [the author’s] name nor his dates are known,” the Bechbretha, a foundational pillar of the Irish legal system “written at a law-school belonging to the MacEgan family” regulated bee-keeping even before 1350. Thomas Charles-Edwards, Fergus Kelly; Bechbretha: An Old Irish Law-Tract on Bee-Keeping 1 (1983). For instance, the Irish were constrained by § 23: “Acht dlegair donaib críchaib seo na rré sorche fo-cerdat in beich saithe ara mbé fer úaidib occa n-imchomét arna érlat a saithi; ar día n-érlat ní dlegat-som somoíni, fo-longat-som bechu co cenn mblíadnae aithirruch.” Id. at 63 (citing Bechbretha (1350) (“But it is required of these lands at any period of brightness in which the bees put out a swarm that there should be a man from them to guard them (the bees) so that their swarms cannot escape; for if they have escaped they (the lands) are not entitled to profit, and they support the bees until the end of a further year”). This view of the long span of history and the future bodes well for the future of the Court of Petty Appeals.
[1] See Pamela M Ling & N. Hafez, How Philip Morris built Marlboro into a Global Brand for Young Adults: Implications for International Tobacco Control, 14 Tothebacco Control 262 (2005).
[2] “When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) goes to court, it depends on the Department of Justice (DOJ), by law, to conduct all formal aspects of litigation.” C. Joseph Ross Daval, Litigating Authority for the 100 Wash. U. L. Rev. 175 (2022). See also Charles R. McConachie, The Role of The Department of Justice in Enforcing the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 31 Food Drug Cosm. L.J. 333, 333–34 (1976).
[3] This Court accepts a broad definition of distributor, which includes transfer of cigarettes among teammates and friends. See Rule 1, Petty Rules of Civil Procedure, Revised Ed. (2024) (we’ll do what we please).
[4] Honeybee regulations historically allowed the unrestricted importation into the United States of honeybees and honeybee semen from Canada, but placed stringent requirements on the importation of these products from other countries.