Federal Court

Subscribe to Federal Court via RSS

Yet again, the premium cigar industry has prevailed in federal court against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As we have previously discussed here and here, FDA appealed a federal district court decision vacating its rule (the Deeming Rule) subjecting premium cigars to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Tobacco Control Act (TCA). On January 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) issued an opinion agreeing[1] with (i) the district court’s ruling that FDA acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it sought to include premium cigars in its Deeming Rule and (ii) the district court’s vacatur of the Deeming Rule as applied to premium cigars, but it remanded the case to the district court to determine the appropriate definition of “premium cigar.” Now, the district court will reconsider the appropriate definition of “premium cigar,” which will ultimately determine the types of cigars that are not subject to the TCA and FDA’s Deeming Rule. In one potential setback for industry, the D.C. Circuit also stated that it understood the district court’s order as granting relief from user fees prospectively but that it does not read it as permitting the refunding of past user fee payments.

On December 17, 2024, Iowans for Alternatives to Smoking & Tobacco, Inc., Global Source Distribution, LLC, and others filed a complaint[1] and motion for a preliminary injunction[2] in federal district court against the Iowa Department of Revenue (the Department) challenging Iowa House File 2677 (HF 2677), a law imposing certification and directory requirements on vapor products sold in Iowa. A hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for March 5. If the court rules in the plaintiffs’ favor, it could stay enforcement of the new law until the case is ultimately resolved. While the Department was previously scheduled to publish the vapor products directory on January 2 and begin enforcement on February 3, the Department has not published the directory, and its website indicates that it will not be enforcing the directory. The Department’s website states: “Publication and enforcement of Iowa’s vapor products directory is delayed until further notice. The Department will make an additional announcement before publication and enforcement of the vapor products directory begins. During the delay, manufacturers should continue to submit certification applications.”

A consumer class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against EVO Brands, LLC and PVG2, LLC, both doing business as Puff Bar. The lawsuit alleges that Puff Bar violated state consumer protection laws by engaging in deceptive marketing practices aimed at youth, and by misleading consumers about the legality and safety of their synthetic nicotine e-cigarettes.

Earlier this month, 20 Democratic state attorneys general (AG) filed an amicus brief supporting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) marketing denial orders (MDOs) of premarket tobacco applications (PMTAs) for flavored electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS or e-cigarettes) currently under review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The brief not only demonstrates which side these states support, but also identifies specific enforcement priorities for these states.

In June, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) argued in federal court that the federal Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act requires tribal retailers to obtain state licenses to sell cigarettes on their own reservations. If accepted, ATF’s position would greatly expand the scope of state authority over tribal tobacco sales.

On August 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit decided a case addressing Nebraska’s authority to require tribal cigarette manufacturers that are not parties to the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) to comply with the state’s escrow statute with respect to cigarettes sold in Indian country. See HCI Distrib., Inc. v. Peterson, No. 23-2311 (8th Cir., Aug. 2, 2024).

In an unusual move, attorneys general (AG) from 30 states and the District of Columbia filed a bipartisan amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit supporting efforts to revive a proposed class action against payment processor Shopify. The amici back plaintiff-appellant Brandon Briskin in his effort to convince the Ninth Circuit to overturn en banc a three-judge panel decision affirming the dismissal of his data privacy suit for lack of personal jurisdiction.

President Joe Biden announced his nomination of Ryan Y. Park, the solicitor general of North Carolina, for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. This selection underscores the pivotal role that attorneys general (AGs) offices play in the legal landscape, not just as enforcers of state laws but also as training grounds for future judges who will bring their unique perspectives to the bench.

On Wednesday, attorneys general (AG) for the states of Florida, New York, and the District of Columbia announced that they are joining Tennessee and Virginia in a multistate coalition challenging the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) “Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL)-recruiting ban.” Troutman Pepper previously reported on the lawsuit after the District Court entered a preliminary injunction order in February.