WASHINGTON — The tobacco industry is asking a federal appeals panel to overturn a landmark ruling that could open the door to more lawsuits from smokers claiming they were harmed because they were deceived by cigarette companies.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit scheduled arguments today to hear from both the industry and the government. The two parties are challenging different aspects of a judge's 2006 ruling that the tobacco industry deceived the public for decades about risks.

That ruling barred cigarette companies from using terms such as "low tar" or "light" in their marketing, but did not impose financial penalties.

Cigarette companies say they did nothing wrong, while the Justice Department wants the industry to pay roughly $14 billion for a smoking cessation program and related efforts.

In August 2006, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ruled that the nation's top cigarette makers violated racketeering laws, misleading the public for years about the health hazards of smoking. But she said she lacked authority to order them to pay the billions of dollars the government had sought.

Kessler, however, did order the companies to publish in newspapers and on their Web sites "corrective statements" on the adverse health effects and addictiveness of smoking and nicotine.

She also ordered tobacco companies to stop labeling cigarettes as "low tar," "light," "ultra light" or "mild," since such cigarettes have been found to be no safer than others because of how people smoke them.

In her ruling in the long-running case, the judge said, "Over the course of more than 50 years, defendants lied, misrepresented and deceived the American public, including smokers and the young people they avidly sought as 'replacement smokers,' about the devastating health effects of smoking and environmental tobacco smoke (secondhand smoke)."

Kessler, who presided over a nonjury trial in the case, said adoption of a national stop-smoking program, as sought by the government, "would unquestionably serve the public interest" but that she was barred by an appeals court ruling that said remedies must be forward-looking and not penalties for past actions.