Justices widen court options for vaping
companies pushing back against FDA rules
By Lindsay Whitehurst
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court sided with e-cigarette companies last Friday in a ruling making it easier to sue over Food and Drug Administration decisions blocking their products from the multi-billion-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 attempting to find a court favorable to its arguments, a practice often referred to as “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.
Company’s push for a quick decision
on tariffs rejected
By Lindsay Whitehurst
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court last 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.
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court last 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.
