Supreme court widens court options for vaping companies pushing back against FDA rules

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court sided with e-cigarette companies on Friday in a ruling making it easier to sue over Food and Drug Administration decisions blocking their products from the multibillion-dollar vaping market.
The 7-2 opinion comes as companies push back against a yearslong federal regulatory crackdown on electronic cigarettes. It's expected to give the companies more control over which judges hear lawsuits filed against the agency.
The justices went the other way on vaping in an April decision, siding with the FDA in a ruling upholding a sweeping block on most sweet-flavored vapes instituted after a spike in youth vaping.
The current case was filed by R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., which had sold a line of popular berry and menthol-flavored vaping products before the agency started regulating the market under the Tobacco Control Act in 2016.
The agency refused to authorize the company's Vuse Alto products, an order that 'sounded the death knell for a significant portion of the e-cigarette market,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion.
The company is based in North Carolina and typically would have been limited to challenging the FDA in a court there or in the agency's home base of Washington. Instead, it joined forces with Texas businesses that sell the products and sued there. The conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the lawsuit to go forward, finding that anyone whose business is hurt by the FDA decision can sue.
The agency appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that R.J. Reynolds was trying to find a court friendly to its arguments, a practice often called 'judge shopping.'
The justices, though, found that the law does allow other businesses affected by the FDA decisions, like e-cigarette sellers, to sue in their home states.
In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said she would have sided with the agency and limited where the cases can be filed.
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids called the majority decision disappointing, saying it would allow manufacturers to 'judge shop,' though it said the companies will still have to contend with the Supreme Court's April decision.
Attorney Ryan Watson, who represented R.J. Reynolds, said that the court recognized that agency decisions can have devastating downstream effects on retailers and other businesses, and the decision 'ensures that the courthouse doors are not closed' to them.
___
Follow the AP's coverage of the Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Newsweek

an hour ago

• Newsweek

Justice Jackson Warns of 'Reputational Cost' to Supreme Court After Ruling

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the majority's ruling in a case over fuel providers challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of California's vehicle emissions regulations, writing in a Friday dissent that the decision comes at a "reputational cost" for the court, according to documents reviewed by Newsweek. She added that the decision gives "fodder" to the perception that "moneyed interests, enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens." Why It Matters In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and sided with fuel producers, ruling they have Article III standing to challenge the EPA's approval of California's vehicle emissions regulations. California's regulations "require automakers to limit average greenhouse-gas emissions across their vehicle fleets and manufacture a certain percentage of electric vehicles," the lawsuit reads. Several fuel producers sued the EPA over its approval of California's regulations, arguing the agency exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act by approving regulations that target "global climate change rather than local California air quality problems." Jackson's dissent raised concerns about public perception of favoritism and the court being swayed by powerful interests. Confidence in the Supreme Court has steadily declined for decades, with 47 percent of Americans viewing the court favorably and 51 percent unfavorably, according to a 2024 Pew Research Center survey. In 1987, 76 percent held a favorable view, while just 17 percent viewed the court unfavorably. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at her Senate confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 22, 2022. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at her Senate confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 22, 2022. AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster What To Know In Diamond Alternative Energy v. Environmental Protection Agency, Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued the majority opinion, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's liberals, holding that fuel producers have standing to challenge the EPA's approval of the California regulations. In her dissent, Jackson called out the majority's application of "standing doctrine," writing that "When courts adjust standing requirements to let certain litigants challenge the actions of the political branches but preclude suits by others with similar injuries, standing doctrine cannot perform its constraining function." She argued that "Over time, such selectivity begets judicial overreach and erodes public trust in the impartiality of judicial decision making." Jackson's dissent says the court is "setting us down that path." "I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests," she said later in the opinion. Jackson argues that this perception, and even a mere "'appearance' of favoritism, founded or not," can undermine public confidence in the highest court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor also dissented, filing a separate opinion and not joining Jackson's. What People Are Saying Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, told NBC on Friday: "I don't think this case is an example of the court being inconsistent or somehow more favorable to moneyed interests than other sorts of interests. It's not like the court has closed the door on environmental groups." Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion: "Justice Jackson separately argues that the Court does not apply standing doctrine 'evenhandedly'...A review of standing cases over the last few years disproves that suggestion." Beth Milito, vice president of the National Federation of Independent Business' Small Business Legal Center, which filed an amicus brief in the case, said in a Friday press release: "Small businesses have the right to challenge overreach by government agencies and seek relief from harmful regulatory actions. The D.C. Circuit's opinion set an unreasonable standard for plaintiffs to prove that the court can remedy their injury. This would have made it nearly impossible for indirectly regulated parties to challenge regulating agencies. NFIB applauds the Court for reversing the lower court's opinion and ensuring that small businesses have a clear course of action and a fair chance at proving that the court can provide suitable relief." Kristen Waggoner, president and chief counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, who filed an amicus brief in the case, said Friday on X (formerly Twitter): "The ruling in Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA has significant implications beyond just environmental SCOTUS ruling will help plaintiffs, like these churches, hold the government accountable when its regulations have the downstream effect of violating their fundamental rights. An important win." What Happens Next The Supreme Court is expected to release a slew of opinions in the coming weeks, with the term scheduled to end in late June.

Business Wire

2 hours ago

• Business Wire

Purdue Pharma L.P. Receives Court Approval of Disclosure Statement Filed in Connection with its Plan of Reorganization

STAMFORD, Conn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Purdue Pharma L.P. ('Purdue') today announced that the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the 'Bankruptcy Court') approved the Company's disclosure statement for its Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization. The disclosure statement provides creditors with detailed information on the terms of the Plan and will accompany the ballots that will be sent to the more than 600,000 claimants eligible to vote. The court has set a September 30 voting deadline and a November confirmation hearing. 'Following the 2024 Supreme Court ruling, we doubled down on our commitment to work with our creditors to design a new Plan that delivers unprecedented value to those affected by the opioid crisis. Today's disclosure statement approval is a major milestone in that effort,' said Purdue Board Chairman Steve Miller. 'We and our creditors have worked tirelessly in mediation to build consensus and negotiate a settlement that will increase the total value provided to victims and communities, put billions of dollars to work on day one, and serve the public good. We sincerely thank our stakeholders for their dedication and collaboration, and we look forward to having the plan confirmed and consummated as quickly as possible.' Purdue's Plan of Reorganization includes the following elements: Assuming full creditor participation, the Sacklers will make settlement payments of approximately $6.5 billion in installments over the next 15 years, subject to certain reserves. They will pay $1.5 billion on the day the Plan becomes effective. Purdue will contribute 100% of its assets, with an expected $900 million in cash available for distribution on the day of emergence. Notably, the Plan is the only opioid settlement to date that meaningfully compensates individual victims. Assuming full participation, individual victims will receive more than $850 million. In addition to this cash value, the Plan creates a new company with a public minded mission. The new company will provide millions of doses of lifesaving opioid use disorder treatment and overdose reversal medicines at no profit. The Sacklers, who exited the Board of Purdue by the end of 2018 and have had no involvement in Purdue since that time, will have no role whatsoever in the new company. Purdue Pharma L.P. will be liquidated following emergence. The Plan also provides a historic level of transparency. It creates a document repository that will make available to the public millions of documents, including privileged documents, related to Purdue's historical sales and marketing practices. The Plan does not contain third-party releases and fully complies with the Supreme Court's June 2024 decision in Harrington. The disclosure statement approved today provides the full details about the material aspects of the plan. The Plan is subject to confirmation by the Bankruptcy Court. This release is not intended as a solicitation of a vote on the Plan. Purdue Pharma and its subsidiaries develop, manufacture and market medications to meet the evolving needs of healthcare professionals, patients, and caregivers. Purdue and its subsidiaries focus on balancing innovative science with clinically effective, compassionate care. The Company's goals are to serve patients who rely on its medicines, pursue public health initiatives intended to help abate the opioid crisis, advance its pipeline of branded and generic medications, and introduce medicines that will help save and improve lives.

Hamilton Spectator

3 hours ago

• Hamilton Spectator

Michael Waltrip joins ownership group of AF1's Nashville Kats

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Two-time Daytona 500 winner Michael Waltrip has joined the ownership group of the Nashville Kats, a founding franchise of the Arena Football 1 league. The Kats announced Waltrip joining the group Friday along with his craft beer company Michael Waltrip Brewing. The ownership group already includes former NFL coach Jon Gruden with Jeff Fisher , a former coach of the Los Angeles Rams and Tennessee Titans, majority owner. 'We now have three living legends attached to the Nashville Kats — Jeff Fisher, Jon Gruden, and Michael Waltrip — all with the ultimate goal to win championships and raise the AF1 to its ultimate potential along with any team associated with the AF1,' said Bobby DeVoursney, the Kats' CEO and managing partner. Waltrip's brewery now is the team's official craft beer. The team also plans a 'Waltrip Winner's Circle' fan zone for the upcoming season. The Kats play the Southwest Kansas Storm on Sunday in Clarksville in the AF1 semifinals. ___ AP sports: