Supreme Court Widens Court Options for Vaping Companies Pushing Back Against FDA Rules
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 US 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.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
South Korea's chief trade negotiator plans US visit June 22-27
South Korea's trade minister Yeo Han-koo will visit the United States from June 22 to 27, the trade ministry said on Saturday. The visit will include discussions with US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and the third round of bilateral technical discussions, a ministry official told Reuters. Further details about the meetings were not disclosed. 'Since a South Korea-US summit has yet to take place and key ministers have not been appointed under the new administration, negotiations are likely to focus on areas that the trade ministry can manage - excluding major issues such as defense cost - sharing and exchange rates,' Heo Yoon, an economics professor at Sogang University, said. 'Given these circumstances, reaching a comprehensive agreement on key negotiation frameworks and agendas is expected to be challenging.' South Korea, which is currently facing a 10 percent blanket tariff and a 25 percent country-specific duty temporarily paused for 90 days, agreed with the US during initial trade negotiations in late April to craft a trade deal reducing tariffs by July 8. Asia's fourth-largest economy unexpectedly contracted in the first quarter amid US President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs and domestic political unrest following former President Yoon Suk Yeol's martial law decree in December.
Al Arabiya
3 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Middle East tensions put investors on alert, weighing worst-case scenarios
Investors are mulling a host of different market scenarios should the US deepen its involvement in the Middle East conflict, with the potential for ripple effects if energy prices skyrocket. They have honed in on the evolving situation between Israel and Iran, which have exchanged missile strikes, and are closely monitoring whether the US decides to join Israel in its bombing campaign. Potential scenarios could send inflation higher, dampening consumer confidence and lessening the chance of near-term interest rate cuts. This would likely cause an initial selloff in equities and possible safe-haven bid for the dollar. While US crude prices have climbed some 10 percent over the past week, the S&P 500 has been little changed as of yet, following an initial drop when Israel launched its attacks. However, if attacks were to take out Iranian oil supply, 'that's when the market is going to sit up and take notice,' said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at B Riley Wealth. 'If you get disruption to supply of oil product on the global marketplace, that is not reflected in today's WTI price and that is where things get negative,' Hogan said. The White House said on Thursday President Donald Trump would decide on US involvement in the conflict in the next two weeks. Analysts at Oxford Economics modeled three scenarios, ranging from a de-escalation in the conflict, a complete shutdown in Iranian production, and a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, 'each with increasingly large impacts on global oil prices,' the firm said in a note. In the most severe case, global oil prices jump to around $130 per barrel, driving US inflation near 6 percent by the end of this year, Oxford said in the note. 'Although the price shock inevitably dampens consumer spending because of the hit to real incomes, the scale of the rise in inflation and concerns about the potential for second-round inflation effects likely ruin any chance of rate cuts in the US this year,' Oxford said in the note. Oil impact The biggest market impact from the escalating conflict has been restricted to oil, with oil prices soaring on worries that the Iran-Israel conflict could disrupt supplies. Brent crude futures have risen as much as 18 percent since June 10, hitting a near 5-month high of $79.04 on Thursday. The accompanying rise in investors' expectations for further near-term volatility in oil prices has outpaced the rise in volatility expectations for other major asset classes, including stocks and bonds. But other asset classes, including stocks, could still feel the knock-on effects of higher oil prices, especially if there is a larger surge in oil prices if the worst market fears of supply disruptions come true, analysts said. 'Geopolitical tensions have been mostly ignored by equities, but they are being factored into oil,' Citigroup analysts wrote in a note. 'To us, the key for equities from here will come from energy commodity pricing,' they said. Stocks unperturbed US stocks have so far weathered rising Middle East tensions with little sign of panic. A more direct US involvement in the conflict could, however, spook markets, investors said. Financial markets may be in for an initial selloff if the US military attacks Iran, with economists warning that a dramatic rise in oil prices could damage a global economy already strained by Trump's tariffs. Still, any pullback in equities might be fleeting, history suggests. During past prominent instances of Middle East tensions coming to a boil, including the 2003 Iraq invasion and the 2019 attacks on Saudi oil facilities, stocks initially languished but soon recovered to trade higher in the months ahead. On average, the S&P 500 slipped 0.3 percent in the three weeks following the start of conflict, but was 2.3 percent higher on average two months following the conflict, according to data from Wedbush Securities and CapIQ Pro. Dollar woes An escalation in the conflict could have mixed implications for the US dollar, which has tumbled this year amid worries over diminished US exceptionalism. In the event of US direct engagement in the Iran-Israel War, the dollar could initially benefit from a safety bid, analysts said. 'Traders are likely to worry more about the implicit erosion of the terms of trade for Europe, the UK, and Japan, rather than the economic shock to the US, a major oil producer,' Thierry Wizman, Global FX & Rates Strategist at Macquarie Group, said in a note. But longer-term, the prospect of US-directed 'nation-building' would probably weaken the dollar, he said. 'We recall that after the attacks of 9/11, and running through the decade-long US presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, the USD weakened,' Wizman said.
Al Arabiya
5 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
How Senate Republicans Want to Change the Tax Breaks in Trump's Big Bill
House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches to the tax cuts they want to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers disagree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. They also disagree on issues such as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym memberships and whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can finalize a bill. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: Tax break for families: The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts it to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years –– roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump campaign promises: Trump promised during the campaign that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security benefits. He also said he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of overtime a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer, and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the US. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. More SALT: The caps on state and local tax deductions (known in Washington as the SALT cap) now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California, and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number in the coming weeks that both sides can accept. Medicaid providers: The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes are now effectively capped at six percent. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare) until it reaches 3.5 percent in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning, and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' Tax breaks for business: The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the US Chamber of Commerce. Clean energy tax credits: Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy, such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. Odds and ends: The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for electric vehicle owners and $100 for hybrid owners, which would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees.
