Court sides with the FDA in its dispute
over sweet-flavored vaping products
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled for the Food and Drug Administration in its crackdown on sweet-flavored vaping products following a surge in teen electronic cigarette use.
But the justices' unanimous decision throwing out a federal appeals court ruling is not the final word in the case, and the FDA could change its approach now that President Donald Trump has promised to "save" vaping.
The high court ruled that the FDA, during President Joe Biden's administration, did not violate federal law when it denied an application from Dallas-based company Triton Distribution to sell e-juices like "Jimmy The Juice Man in Peachy Strawberry" and "Suicide Bunny Mother's Milk and Cookies." The products are heated by an e-cigarette to create an inhalable aerosol.
Yolonda Richardson, president and CEO of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called the decision "a major victory for the health of America's kids and efforts to protect them from the flavored e-cigarettes that have fueled a youth nicotine addiction crisis."
The FDA has rejected applications for more than a million nicotine products formulated to taste like fruit, dessert or candy because their makers couldn't show that flavored vapes had a net public benefit, as required by law.
It has approved some tobacco-flavored vapes, and recently it allowed its first menthol-flavored e-cigarettes for adult smokers after the company provided data showing the product was more helpful in quitting.
But the conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Triton, agreeing that the FDA changed its standards with little warning in violation of federal law.
While mainly ruling for the FDA on Wednesday, the Supreme Court noted that the agency had said the company's marketing plan would be an important factor in evaluating its application. But it ultimately did not consider the marketing plan, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.
The appeals court was ordered to consider if the failure to do so is an important mistake that might still lead to a decision in Triton's favor.
The FDA has so far not instituted changes to its polices on vaping. But on Tuesday, the FDA's top tobacco regulator, Brian King, was removed from his post amid sweeping cuts to the federal health workforce that have cleared out many of the nation's leading health experts. King oversaw hundreds of warning letters issued to companies that make, sell and distribute flavored vapes.
But the justices' unanimous decision throwing out a federal appeals court ruling is not the final word in the case, and the FDA could change its approach now that President Donald Trump has promised to "save" vaping.
The high court ruled that the FDA, during President Joe Biden's administration, did not violate federal law when it denied an application from Dallas-based company Triton Distribution to sell e-juices like "Jimmy The Juice Man in Peachy Strawberry" and "Suicide Bunny Mother's Milk and Cookies." The products are heated by an e-cigarette to create an inhalable aerosol.
Yolonda Richardson, president and CEO of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called the decision "a major victory for the health of America's kids and efforts to protect them from the flavored e-cigarettes that have fueled a youth nicotine addiction crisis."
The FDA has rejected applications for more than a million nicotine products formulated to taste like fruit, dessert or candy because their makers couldn't show that flavored vapes had a net public benefit, as required by law.
It has approved some tobacco-flavored vapes, and recently it allowed its first menthol-flavored e-cigarettes for adult smokers after the company provided data showing the product was more helpful in quitting.
But the conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Triton, agreeing that the FDA changed its standards with little warning in violation of federal law.
While mainly ruling for the FDA on Wednesday, the Supreme Court noted that the agency had said the company's marketing plan would be an important factor in evaluating its application. But it ultimately did not consider the marketing plan, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.
The appeals court was ordered to consider if the failure to do so is an important mistake that might still lead to a decision in Triton's favor.
The FDA has so far not instituted changes to its polices on vaping. But on Tuesday, the FDA's top tobacco regulator, Brian King, was removed from his post amid sweeping cuts to the federal health workforce that have cleared out many of the nation's leading health experts. King oversaw hundreds of warning letters issued to companies that make, sell and distribute flavored vapes.
Truck driver can seek triple damages in
lawsuit over THC content in CBD product
By Lindsay Whitehurst
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with a truck driver who wants to sue for triple damages over a CBD hemp product he says was falsely advertised as being free from marijuana's active ingredient and resulted in him getting fired.
The 5-4 opinion clears the way for the trucker to seek triple damages under an anti-mob law. It doesn't decide his underlying claims that the product's THC content got him fired.
Douglas Horn said he wanted to treat chronic shoulder and back pain after a serious accident. He chose the product because it was advertised as being free from THC, which gives marijuana its high. CBD is a generally legal hemp compound that is widely sold as a dietary supplement.
But lab tests taken after Horn was fired for failing a routine drug test confirmed the product did have THC, he claimed.
Horn sued the Vista, California-based Medical Marijuana Inc. and sought triple damages under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, often known as RICO.
The company pushed back, disputing Horn's account and saying he can't sue for higher damages because he's claiming a personal injury rather than harm to his business.
Horn says his firing was a business injury and he's been financially ruined, and an appeals court allowed Horn's claim to go forward.
Writing for the court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said Horn had the better argument. "In short, a plaintiff can seek damages for business or property loss regardless of whether the loss resulted from a personal injury," Barrett wrote for an unusual coalition that included her fellow conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch and the nine-member court's three liberals.
Barrett also noted that the decision was no guarantee that Horn ultimately would prevail.
In dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that "RICO's categorical exclusion of personal-injury suits" should have been enough to end Horn's case.
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with a truck driver who wants to sue for triple damages over a CBD hemp product he says was falsely advertised as being free from marijuana's active ingredient and resulted in him getting fired.
The 5-4 opinion clears the way for the trucker to seek triple damages under an anti-mob law. It doesn't decide his underlying claims that the product's THC content got him fired.
Douglas Horn said he wanted to treat chronic shoulder and back pain after a serious accident. He chose the product because it was advertised as being free from THC, which gives marijuana its high. CBD is a generally legal hemp compound that is widely sold as a dietary supplement.
But lab tests taken after Horn was fired for failing a routine drug test confirmed the product did have THC, he claimed.
Horn sued the Vista, California-based Medical Marijuana Inc. and sought triple damages under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, often known as RICO.
The company pushed back, disputing Horn's account and saying he can't sue for higher damages because he's claiming a personal injury rather than harm to his business.
Horn says his firing was a business injury and he's been financially ruined, and an appeals court allowed Horn's claim to go forward.
Writing for the court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said Horn had the better argument. "In short, a plaintiff can seek damages for business or property loss regardless of whether the loss resulted from a personal injury," Barrett wrote for an unusual coalition that included her fellow conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch and the nine-member court's three liberals.
Barrett also noted that the decision was no guarantee that Horn ultimately would prevail.
In dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that "RICO's categorical exclusion of personal-injury suits" should have been enough to end Horn's case.
