HHS

Subscribe to HHS via RSS

An Ohio appellate court recently affirmed the dismissal of a case brought by the Ohio attorney general (AG) against Central Tobacco & Stuff Inc. (Central Tobacco), an e-cigarette retailer, in which the AG alleged that Central Tobacco sold e-cigarettes lacking FDA premarket authorization and violated the state’s Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA) by failing to inform consumers about the lack of FDA authorization. See State ex rel. Attorney Gen. Dave Yost v. Cent. Tobacco & Stuff Inc., 2025-Ohio-4613 (Ct. App.). This appears to be a novel use of a state consumer protection law, which most states have, to attempt to enforce the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The court concluded that federal law preempts Ohio’s ability to enforce FDCA premarket authorization requirements through the CSPA. The court’s decision may be relevant in other cases involving a state’s attempt to enforce FDA premarket authorization requirements through their consumer protection laws.

In May, we wrote about the Trump administration’s first major enforcement action involving the importation of unauthorized e-cigarettes, in which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seized products valued at nearly $34 million. FDA and CBP have once again seized unauthorized e-cigarettes in Chicago, but this time the estimated retail value was $86.5 million — the largest seizure of its kind. This enforcement action is consistent with a statement on FDA’s website: “[e]nforcing against unauthorized ENDS products, including unauthorized products popular with youth, are [sic] among our highest enforcement priorities.” FDA maintains that decisions about whether to take enforcement action will continue to be made on a case-by-case basis after considering youth use and other risk factors.

The federal rescheduling of marijuana has been a topic of conversation within the marijuana industry since President Biden’s statement requesting that the secretary of health and human services (HHS) and the attorney general (AG) “initiate the administrative process to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.”[1] However, the Supreme Court’s recent decision overturning the Chevron doctrine adds an additional layer to an already complicated process. While the exact impact of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo[2] on the cannabis industry remains to be seen, this article explores the way in which it may impact the pending rescheduling.

Tennessee and Mississippi attorney generals (AG), joined by 13 other states, filed a multistate lawsuit in the Southern District of Mississippi. The lawsuit challenges the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) attempt to expand the breadth of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) antidiscrimination provision, known as Section 1557. This section prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. HHS’ new rule, which is scheduled to take effect on July 5, extends the definition of sex to encompass gender identity. The AGs argue that HHS’ expansion of the ACA provision will have undesirable effects on the medical industry. They claim that the promulgation of this new rule is also unconstitutional and interferes with states’ reserved powers.

Only one day after reports surfaced that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) will proceed with rescheduling cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) reintroduced the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act (CAOA or the Act), a nearly 300-page bill that would create a framework for the comprehensive regulation and taxation of cannabis in the United States. Then, on May 16th, the Department of Justice issued its notice of proposed rulemaking to reschedule cannabis to Schedule III. Administrative and legislative approaches to cannabis reform each have their own strengths and weakness that must be carefully considered. In addition, these competing approaches offer an opportunity to highlight the political differences between administrative and legislative policy reform at the federal level.

On April 6, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Civil Rights (HHS) called for public comment on an existing statutory provision that provides a safe harbor for entities that have voluntarily implemented “recognized security practices” as part of their compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The scope…