Chiglo v. City of Preston
(Statute Challenge US Cir. Ct. of App. 1994 Overturned) Citation: 909 F.Supp. 675 (13 Nov 1995); 104 F3d 185 (CA 8, D Minn, 6 Jan 1997)This suit was brought by Binh Chiglo, J&B Inc., and Mary Moore against the City of Preston, Minnesota.
The plaintiffs in this case are a convenience store and gasoline station owner, manager, and employee. The plaintiffs alleged that they were affected by advertising restrictions put in place on May 13, 1994, by the City of Preston's Ordinance No. 213 in order to protect minors from being influenced to use tobacco. The ordinance prohibited point of sale advertising including the display of trademarks and logos asssociated with cigarette brands. The statute permitted a store to display signs that said tobacco products were for sale, as well as a sing indicating tar and nicotine levels of the brands and their price. The plaintiffs claimed that the ordinance was preempted by federal law and violated their First Amendment rights.
The case was heard in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (Civil No. 3-94-1540), before the Honorable Chief Judge Magnuson. The judge (909 F.Supp. 675) granted a summary judgement for the plaintiffs on November 13, 1995. The judge held that the ordinance was preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. The ordinance regulated the content of advertisements and was designed to address health concerns. The defendant did not appeal.
Mike Sveen, Steve Corson, Brent Larson and Jeff Fleming, as citizens of Preston, filed to intervene as defendants in order to appeal the judgment against Preston. The court ruled that they had not shown a legally protected interest was at stake that would allow them to intervene.
The United States Court of Appeals (104 F3d 185) affirmed the denial of the motion to intervene on January 6, 1997 (No. 96-1066). The appeal was heard by Circuit Judges Wollman, John R. Gibson, and Hansen. The court ruled that the intervenors did not show any way in which their interests were different from the public interest. They failed to rebut the presumption that the city government adequately represented their interests as citizens. Mere failure to appeal is not sufficient to show inadequate representation.