Tobacco companies in the USA have relied on which constitutional amendment to challenge compulsory…

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and is the constitutional basis invoked by tobacco companies against compelled graphic cigarette warnings. Litigation such as R.J. Reynolds v FDA in 2012 concerned whether the mandated warnings violated that protection. The Second, Third and Fourth Amendments concern different rights.

Current law: The First Amendment remains the relevant provision. For the later 2020 warning rule, the Fifth Circuit in 2024 rejected the First Amendment challenge. Invoking free-speech rights therefore does not by itself establish that every graphic-warning requirement is unconstitutional.