March 21 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Thursday

said a U.S. government requirement that cigarette packs and

advertisements contain graphic warnings about the dangers of

smoking is constitutional, in a victory for the Biden

administration and a defeat for the tobacco industry.

Reversing a lower court ruling, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court

of Appeals in New Orleans found that the 11 warnings required

under a 2020 Food and Drug Administration rule were "factual and

uncontroversial," and satisfied the First Amendment.

RJ Reynolds, ITG Brands, Liggett and other tobacco companies

complained that the warnings violated their free speech rights

by compelling them to endorse images that they said

misrepresented or exaggerated the harms from smoking.

Lawyers for the tobacco companies did not immediately

respond to requests for comment.

The FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services,

which both appealed the lower court ruling, did not immediately

respond to similar requests.

Though smoking has declined significantly over the decades,

nearly one in eight American adults still smoke, and cigarette

smoking kills more than 480,000 Americans a year, government

data show.

The FDA rule adopted in March 2020 during the Trump

administration required that warnings about the risks of smoking

occupy the top 50% of cigarette packs and top 20% of ads.

These warnings included depictions of feet with amputated

toes, a baby whose fetal growth had been stunted, and a woman

with a large protrusion in her neck caused by cancer, along with

written descriptions of various health risks.

The FDA said the warnings were justified by the government

interest in promoting greater understanding of the health risks

from smoking, and reducing confusion and deception.

Tobacco companies countered that the warnings went far

beyond text warnings that had been allowed since 1984, including

that smoking causes lung cancer and quitting reduces health

risks.

But in a 3-0 decision, Circuit Judge Jerry Smith said the

graphic warnings conveyed facts about the benefits of reduced

smoking, and were not unconstitutional because they "may induce

emotions" or relate to ideological or political concerns.

He also said the warnings were not unduly burdensome, saying

tobacco companies still had plenty of space on cigarette packs

and ads to convey their own messages.

In supporting the rule, the Biden administration said

graphic warnings were necessary because text-only warnings

failed to deter teenagers from smoking.

The appeals court returned the case to U.S. District Judge

J. Campbell Barker in Tyler, Texas, to assess whether the FDA

rule violated federal administrative law.

Barker did not address that argument when striking the rule

down in December 2020.