We have previously reported on the proliferation of tobacco product flavor bans imposed by localities and subsequent legal challenges throughout the U.S. See Oregon Court Upholds Local Tobacco Product Flavor Ban; Troutman Pepper Tobacco Team Featured in Vapor Voice Post on Ninth Circuit’s Holding that L.A. County’s Flavor Ban Is Not Preempted; Philadelphia
The rapid evolution of intoxicating cannabinoids has brought forth significant changes and challenges to both the agricultural and commercial cannabis sectors across the U.S. These new cannabinoids have exposed gaps in state and federal regulatory frameworks, allowing intoxicating substances to be marketed without the stringent level of oversight applied to state-legal cannabis products. These hemp-derived cannabinoids are often sold in gas stations and convenience stores, posing significant risks to consumers, especially minors. The lack of clear federal guidelines has left state attorneys general (AG) grappling with this gray market, leading to calls for legislative action to address the issue comprehensively.
A recent lawsuit in Alabama, challenging the award of medical cannabis licenses by regulators, underscores the potential pitfalls in licensing regimes where applicants are selected based on specific enumerated factors. Below, we examine the Alabama lawsuit in greater detail and consider the alternative policy of utilizing a lottery system to award licenses.
Recent developments in the Massachusetts cannabis industry, significant legislative changes, and legal actions have spotlighted the contentious issue of so-called community impact fees. These fees, which are intended to offset municipal costs associated with hosting cannabis businesses, have sparked debate regarding their fairness and implementation.
On December 22, 2023, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, Pub. L. No. 118-31, 137 Stat. 136 (2023) (NDAA 2024) went into effect. Among other things, NDAA 2024 includes a provision phasing out self-certification of service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSB) and requiring Small Business Administration (SBA) certification of SDVOSB program eligibility, not unlike the requirements for the HUBZone program. SDVOSBs and prime contractors, who seek to work with them to bid on and perform contracts set aside for SDVOSBs, should take note of these changes, which become effective October 1, 2025.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) recently upheld, in a unanimous decision, the town of Brookline’s ordinance banning the sale of tobacco and e-cigarette products to anyone born after Jan. 1, 2000 (the Tobacco Sales Ban). Brookline is the first U.S. locality to impose a tobacco sales ban based on a specific date.
According to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) most recent regulatory agenda, it plans to finalize a proposed rule that would make significant changes to requirements applicable to educational institutions that enroll students utilizing VA benefits, such as under the extremely popular Chapter 33 Post-9/11 GI Bill and Chapter 31 Veteran Readiness and Employment (VR&E) programs, both of which pay tuition and fees directly to schools. The new regulations, which are expected to become final in April and go into effect shortly thereafter, will implement the Veterans Benefits and Transition Act of 2018. As the Congressional Research Service explained, that bill made “a number of changes to educational benefits.”
Recently, NJOY LLC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against more than 30 foreign and domestic defendants that manufacture, market, distribute, and sell tobacco products in an (indirect) effort to force them to comply with federal and state laws. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (collectively, RJR) also recently filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) against more than 25 foreign and domestic manufacturers, distributors, and retailers (collectively, the respondents) that seeks to prevent the import and resale of certain tobacco products. These lawsuits serve as two examples of how industry is trying to take independent legal action to target allegedly noncompliant actors and force them to comply with applicable law.
On October 12, hemp producers and retailers notched an early win in litigation challenging the legality of Maryland’s cannabis licensing program as it applies to hemp. By way of background, the Maryland General Assembly recently passed the Cannabis Reform Act (CRA), after voters gave their stamp of approval to recreational cannabis in the state via a 2022 referendum. Rather than create a separate licensing system for hemp products, the CRA requires anyone selling a “product intended for human consumption or inhalation that contains more than 0.5 milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol per serving or 2.5 milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol per package” to be licensed as a cannabis business. “Tetrahydrocannabinol” (THC) is defined to include delta-8, delta-9, and delta-10 THC. This lack of distinction between hemp- and marijuana-derived products results in the inclusion of existing producers and retailers of hemp-derived THC products into the new cannabis program.
As a result of a legal challenge by the Oregon Cannabis Industry Alliance and cannabis cultivators in Oregon, the Oregon Health Authority’s (OHA) aspergillus fungus testing rule for marijuana, marijuana products, and industrial hemp concentrates and extracts has been withdrawn, and 2,500 pounds of marijuana plus 65,000 units of infused pre-rolls that failed aspergillus testing were released from administrative hold.