Tobacco

Subscribe to Tobacco via RSS

We previously wrote about this case last January, here and here, when Iowans for Alternatives to Smoking & Tobacco, Inc., Global Source Distribution, LLC, and others filed a complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction 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. On May 2, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and enjoined the Department from implementing and enforcing HF 2677’s vapor product directory provisions. The court held that the Department could, however, continue to enforce the provisions of HF 2677 requiring nonresident vapor product manufacturers not registered to do business in the state as a foreign corporation or business entity to appoint and continually engage an agent for service of process. The parties have a status conference before the court scheduled for May 29.

Published in Law360 on March 19, 2025. © Copyright 2025, Portfolio Media, Inc., publisher of Law360. Reprinted here with permission.

In mid-January, a bipartisan coalition of nine state attorneys general, as well as the Washington, D.C., attorney general, announced a coordinated effort to curb illicit electronic cigarette sales. The attorneys general of California,[1] Connecticut,[2] Illinois,[3] Hawaii,[4] Minnesota,[5] New York,[6] New Jersey,[7] Vermont, Ohio and Washington, D.C., are coordinating enforcement activity targeting dealers of these products — issuing warning letters, serving civil investigative demands and filing complaints.

Our colleagues recently wrote about 14 memoranda from the new U.S. Attorney General (AG) Pam Bondi to Department of Justice (DOJ) employees framing the DOJ’s current policies and enforcement priorities. In a memorandum addressing DOJ’s general charging, plea bargaining, and sentencing policy, the AG stated the following: “To free resources to address more pressing priorities, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) shall shift resources from its Alcohol and Tobacco Enforcement Programs to focus on matters relating to the other priorities set forth herein. No resources shall be diverted from the ATF’s regulatory responsibilities, such as federal firearms licenses and background checks.”

In late January, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) withdrew its proposed rules to prohibit menthol as a characterizing flavor in cigarettes and all characterizing flavors in cigars. Although either proposal could be revived under a future administration, the withdrawal ends both of the current rulemaking processes. The move also strongly indicates shifting FDA priorities under the second Trump administration. Amid these changes, industry may find the agency more receptive to its arguments — particularly those submitted in comments to proposed rulemaking.

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.”

Throughout 2024, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) endeavored to curb sales of unauthorized electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) in the U.S. In light of persistent demand for flavored ENDS — nearly all of which are unauthorized — there is little evidence that these enforcement efforts have reduced illicit sales. Indeed, some observers estimate that flavored ENDS account for more than 80% of all ENDS sales. With a new administration on the horizon, our team highlights two opportunities for FDA to step up its enforcement efforts: (1) focusing enforcement on imports and (2) authorizing premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) for flavored products.