Massachusetts' highest court ruled Wednesday that local public health officials do not need to go to court to impose fines on businesses violating state tobacco laws, including restrictions on the sale of flavored products.

The Supreme Judicial Court found that the $1,000 penalty imposed on convenience store chain Cumberland Farms, after a health inspector in Braintree discovered a box of "Black and Mild Jazz" cigars on a store shelf in 2023, did not violate a separate state statute requiring municipalities to seek a court complaint for penalties of that amount or higher.

Cumberland Farms had argued that the state law establishing the fine for first-time violations of tobacco laws did not create a new administrative enforcement mechanism. However, the court ruled that regulations established by the state Department of Public Health clearly allowed local health officials the option to impose fines administratively, as Braintree did, or through the courts.

Justice Gabrielle Wolohojian, writing for the court, stated that the possibility of criminal enforcement “does not foreclose an alternate civil mechanism of enforcement.”

The court also concluded that the Department of Public Health did not exceed its authority by granting local boards of health the power to enforce the tobacco law. Justice Wolohojian cited the Legislature's broad language of delegation and the long-standing history of local regulation of tobacco products.

The court referred to its groundbreaking decision from the previous year, which upheld Brookline’s "generational" tobacco ban prohibiting the sale of tobacco to anyone born on or after Jan. 1, 2000, as an example of local regulation within the department’s authority.

Although Cumberland Farms raised its claims about local enforcement authority at the appellate level, the court addressed the issue to avoid any future confusion for other public officials.

Braintree, a suburb of Boston, is one of 351 Massachusetts municipalities, each with its own local board of health. These boards are responsible for enforcing state laws and regulations, including those related to tobacco products and local codes.

Cumberland Farms also challenged the penalty, arguing that the Braintree board of health had never formally adopted local regulations specifying how fines would be imposed. The court rejected this argument, stating that it was not necessary for the local board to have its own rules, as it and other local boards of health are governed by the enforcement regulations of the state Department of Public Health.

Cumberland Farms, a regional chain with 575 stores, disputed the claim that the cigars were actually being sold when the inspector found them on a shelf behind the register. The chain explained that the cigars had been accidentally placed on the shelf and could not have been sold because the point-of-sale system would have blocked the transaction.

However, the court sided with the Braintree board’s finding that the store’s display and placement of the product could lead a customer to reasonably believe it was available for purchase.

Cumberland Farms initially contested the Braintree board’s order in Norfolk County Superior Court, where a judge reversed a five-day suspension of the store's tobacco sales license but upheld the fine. The high court subsequently reviewed and upheld the fine.

Counsel for Cumberland Farms and Braintree did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

Braintree is represented by Jeffrey T. Blake, Roger L. Smerage, and Steven C. Johnson of KP Law PC. Cumberland Farms is represented by Joshua D. Dunlap and Nicholas L. Anastasi of Pierce Atwood LLP.

The case is Cumberland Farms v. Town of Braintree, case number SJC-13613, in the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.