Effective July 1, Mississippi will require all cigarette and ENDS manufacturers to provide annual certifications and have their products listed on a state directory in order for their products to be sold in the state. The law, enacted through HB 916, creates separate directories for cigarettes, including roll-your-own (RYO) tobacco, and Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) products, such as e-cigarettes and vapes.
FDA and CBP Seize Nearly $34M Worth of Illegal E-Cigarettes in Joint Operation
In the first major enforcement action involving the importation of illegal tobacco products by the new administration, and on the heels of the appointment of the new acting director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Tobacco Products, FDA and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seized illegal e-cigarettes valued at nearly $34 million. This operation underscores the ongoing efforts by federal agencies to combat the influx of unauthorized tobacco products into the U.S.
Troutman Pepper Locke Tobacco + Nicotine Team to Attend the Next Generation Nicotine Delivery Conference
Bryan Haynes, Agustin Rodriguez and Michael Jordan of the Troutman Pepper Locke Tobacco + Nicotine team will attend the Next Generation Nicotine Delivery Conference in Miami, Florida next week.
This conference will address ongoing changes at the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products, legal updates, tax issues, product…
Federal Court Pumps the Brakes on Iowa Vape Directory
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.
Troutman Pepper Locke Tobacco + Nicotine Team to Attend EVO NXT 2025
Bryan Haynes of the Troutman Pepper Locke Tobacco + Nicotine team will attend EVO NXT 2025 in Milan, Italy next week.
EVO NXT is an international business festival for next-generation nicotine and hemp products. Trade visitors and decision-makers from the category will join to discover the latest trends and technologies.…
New US AG Shifts Resources Away From Tobacco Enforcement
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.”
California and Denver Impose New Restrictions on Nicotine Analog Products
In what appear to be the first restrictions of their kind, the state of California and the city and county of Denver have adopted bans on flavored tobacco products that cover not only products containing tobacco and nicotine, but also nicotinic alkaloids and nicotine analogs.
FDA Withdraws Proposed Bans on Menthol Cigarettes and Flavored Cigars
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.
Supreme Court Weighs Vape Venue Dispute
On January 21, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case addressing who may challenge Food and Drug Administration (FDA) marketing denial orders for new tobacco products.
Federal Appellate Court Agrees that FDA Cannot Regulate “Premium Cigars”
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.