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

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.
Advertisement
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.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
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.'
Advertisement
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.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

an hour ago

Supreme Court rejects toy company's push for a quick decision on Trump's tariffs

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a push from an Illinois toy company asking for a quick decision on the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs. Learning Resources Inc. wanted the justices to take up the case soon, rather than let it continue to play out in lower courts. The company argues the tariffs and uncertainty are having a 'massive impact' on businesses around the country and the issue needs swift attention from the nation's highest court. The justices didn't explain their reasoning in the brief order rebuffing the motion to fast-track the issue, but the Supreme Court is typically reluctant to take up cases before lower courts have decided. An appeals court is set to hear the case in late July. The company argues that the Republican president illegally imposed tariffs under an emergency powers law, bypassing Congress. It won an early victory in a lower court, but the order is on hold as an appeals court considers a similar ruling putting a broader block on Trump's tariffs. The appeals court has allowed Trump to continue collecting tariffs under the emergency powers law for now. The Trump administration has defended the tariffs by arguing that the emergency powers law gives the president the authority to regulate imports during national emergencies and that the country's longtime trade deficit qualifies as a national emergency.

Business Insider

6 hours ago

• Business Insider

Incyte announces FDA extends review period for Opzelura sNDA

The company states: 'Incyte (INCY) announced that the FDA has extended the review period for the supplemental New Drug Application, sNDA, for ruxolitinib cream, Opzelura, a topical Janus kinase inhibitor, for the treatment of children 2-11 years old with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis. The PDUFA action date has been extended by three months to September 19, 2025. The FDA extended the PDUFA action date to allow time to review additional chemistry, manufacturing and controls data on the 0.75% strength submitted by Incyte in response to a recent FDA information request.' Steven Stein, M.D., Chief Medical Officer, Incyte stated: 'We are confident in the potential of ruxolitinib cream to become an important non-steroidal, topical treatment option for pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis and we will continue to work closely with the FDA to ensure the Agency has all of the information needed to complete its review.' Confident Investing Starts Here:

San Francisco Chronicle​

8 hours ago

• San Francisco Chronicle​

Supreme Court delivers another blow to California's imperiled emissions standards

The Supreme Court reinstated legal challenges by oil and gas companies Friday to California's strict emissions standards for motor vehicles, standards that the Trump administration is likely to halt on its own in the near future. Federal law allows California to set tighter limits on auto emissions than the national standard, and since 1990 has allowed other states to adopt California's rules, an option taken by 17 states and the District of Columbia. But fuel companies affected by the increasing use of electric vehicles contend the state's standards are too restrictive and have sued to overturn them. Lower federal courts ruled that companies had failed to show they were being harmed by the standards, and therefore lacked legal standing to sue, because electric car sales are increasing for other reasons. The Supreme Court disagreed in a 7-2 decision. 'The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court.' But dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said lawyers in the case had told the court that the Environmental Protection Agency, under President Donald Trump, was about to withdraw its approval of California's waiver from nationwide standards, 'which will put an end to California's emissions program.' The EPA took that action during Trump's first administration, which was reversed under President Joe Biden. Meanwhile, legislation passed by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed by Trump would prevent California from banning sales of new gasoline-powered vehicles in 2035, a law the state has challenged in court. The Supreme Court 'is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,' and Friday's ruling 'will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act,' said Jackson, a Biden appointee. In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court should have returned the case to a lower court to await the EPA's action. Kavanaugh, however, said fuel companies affected by California's current standards could seek to prove in court that they were arbitrary and unlawful. His opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan. Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board, said it was not a full-scale rejection of the state's emissions standards. 'This ruling does not change California's Advanced Clean Cars rulemaking, nor does it dispute what data has shown to be true: vehicle emissions are a huge source of pollution with grave health impacts, consumer adoption of zero emission vehicles continues to rise, and global auto manufacturers are committed to an electric future,' she said in a statement. But attorney Brett Skorup of the libertarian Cato Institute said the ruling was 'a welcome rebuke to judicial gatekeeping' and affirmed that 'predictable economic harms from government regulation' entitle 'injured parties (to) have their day in court.' The case is Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, No. 24-7.