The Food and Drug Administration can no longer regulate tobacco as a drug, according to the majority decision sent down by the Supreme Court on Tuesday. The court’s holding essentially removes all regulations that the FDA has already enacted on the tobacco industry. For instance, people under 27 years of age are no longer required to provide identification to purchase tobacco products.

This bare majority’s decision (5-4) was based on the argument that because congress had never authorized the FDA’s ability to regulate the tobacco industry, the administration’s regulations were not legally viable.

On first viewing, it may appear that this decision is an overwhelming victory for the already unpopular tobacco industry and a resounding defeat for nearly everyone else, but this ruling is not quite as stunning as it may seem. The court’s decision to overturn current regulations and to disallow the FDA from any further regulation of tobacco sales is actually protecting the rights of Americans and American businesses.

Basically, the Supreme Court was given the task of reviewing this case with impartiality — a difficult feat with the tobacco industry’s ever-present threat to public health. But this case wasn’t really an issue about public health. If it were, then it would have resulted differently. It was, instead, concerned with controlling the self-appointed autonomy of the FDA, or any national government agency for that matter, over businesses and industry.

The FDA cannot exceed the limits set upon it by Congress. If it could, then more industries would be threatened than merely tobacco companies. This cannot be afforded, and the court’s recognition of this proves that our system of checks and balances remains intact.

The Supreme Court should not be condemned for its unpopular decision. Rather, it should be applauded because it was able to disregard popular sentiment and the threat that the industry has on national health. It deciphered the true implications of both sides, finding that the prevention of federal organizations from wielding power over industries without congressional approval outweighs even the health of the nation. The dangers that those industries may pose can be disregarded.

Of course smoking is detrimental. It is an addictive drug that is linked to several life-threatening conditions and should be regulated on those grounds alone, but not until congressional approval is granted.

The tobacco industry’s celebration over this decision will be short-lived. Congress should — and will — eventually grant power to the FDA to regulate tobacco more strictly, which will be acting on behalf of the health of our country, especially its children. Only this time, the proper legal steps will be taken. That is, if lobby money doesn't sway too many votes.