Holt's Cigar Co. v. City of Philadelphia, 10 A.3d 902

Background

Philadelphia enacted Bill No. 060345-AAA to prohibit sale of loosies, flavored cigars, and other dual-use items and to ban sales within 500 feet of schools and similar facilities.
Holt's Cigar Co. and trade groups challenged the ordinance as preempted by the state Act, which criminalizes delivery of drug paraphernalia with a mens rea requirement.
Trial court issued a preliminary injunction; the Commonwealth Court partly affirmed and partly reversed, striking some provisions but treating others as zoning.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether the Ordinance is preempted by the Act under conflict preemption, focusing on mens rea and consistency with the Act.
The majority held that Sections 9-622(5)(a) and 9-629(2) are preempted due to irreconcilable conflict with the Act's mens rea requirement; the dissent disagreed, arguing no direct conflict and that local regulation can complement the Act.
The case centers on whether the General Assembly’s savings clause allowing consistent local ordinances permits Philadelphia to regulate dual-use items civilly, without duplicating criminal liability.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the Philadelphia ordinance preempted by the Act under conflict preemption?	Holt's Cigar argues conflict preemption because the Act requires mens rea for drug paraphernalia, while the ordinance imposes civil penalties for dual-use item sales without intent.	City contends the Act and ordinance address different conduct and are not irreconcilable; the ordinance complements the Act and serves local interests.	Yes; Sections 9-622(5)(a) and 9-629(2) preempted due to irreconcilable conflict.
Does the Act's mens rea requirement create irreconcilable conflict with the ordinance's lack of scienter under dual-use sales?	Mazzo-based reasoning shows irreconcilable conflict because the Act criminalizes knowing use while the ordinance punishes sales regardless of seller knowledge.	City argues no irreconcilable conflict since the ordinance targets different, civil consequences and does not eliminate criminal liability under the Act.	Yes; the presence of mens rea in the Act and its absence in the ordinance creates irreconcilable conflict.
Does the Act's savings clause allow consistent local ordinances regulating drug paraphernalia?	The savings clause forecloses only inconsistent local ordinances; dual-use regulation should be allowed to coexist.	The City views the savings clause as permitting consistent local regulation that complements the Act.	The majority treated savings clause as not saving the challenged provisions; the conflict remains.
Would the local regulation stand as an obstacle to the General Assembly’s objectives if preemption is found not to apply?	Ordinance achieves broader public health goals by restricting access to dual-use items; it does not obstruct the Act's core purpose.	Even if not an obstacle, the ordinance serves as an independent local control over commerce in dual-use items.	Preemption found; the ordinance is inconsistent with the Act's objectives.

Key Cases Cited

Maz zo v. Board of Pensions & Retirement of the City of Philadelphia, 531 Pa. 78 (1992) (conflict preemption where local rule adds requirement not in statute)
Weber v. Div. of City Health, 394 Pa. 466 (1959) (local health code can supplement state statute if not in conflict)
Marcincin v. City of Bethlehem, 512 Pa. 1 (1986) (local term limits upheld when not foreclosed by statute; harmony not irreconcilable)
Nutter v. Dougherty, 595 Pa. 340 (2007) (legislative silence on local regulation does not abolish local authority)
Mars Emergency Medical Services, Inc. v. Township of Adams, 559 Pa. 309 (1999) (conflict preemption restrained, considering local needs and statute objectives)
Huntley & Huntley, Inc. v. Borough Council of the Borough of Oakmont, 600 Pa. 207 (2009) (conflict preemption; local regulation must not obstruct full purposes of state law)
Restaurant Association v. City of Pittsburgh, 366 Pa. 374 (1951) (local ordinances may supplement state regulations unless directly conflicting)