This article was originally published on August 29, 2025 on Law360 and is republished here with permission.
On June 20, in U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that marketing denial orders issued by the FDA regarding new tobacco products can be challenged not only by the applicants — typically, the manufacturer or importer of the products — but also by retailers of such products.[1]
On August 21, 2025, NJOY, LLC (NJOY), a subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., sued the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), alleging that the agency has unlawfully delayed rendering a decision on supervisory review of its June 2022 marketing denial order (MDO) for certain flavored, disposable electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS).
As we recently covered here, FDA has struggled to control the proliferation of ENDS products that are not in compliance with premarket authorization requirements. Flavored illicit disposable ENDS have been particularly dominant in the face of lacking federal enforcement. This litigation is significant because it highlights another key reason for the illicit products’ dominance: FDA’s failure to timely act on premarket submissions for flavored ENDS.
In early August, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that the civil money penalty (CMP) provision in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) for tobacco products, 21 U.S.C. § 333(f)(9), is unconstitutional. Specifically, the court found that the FDCA improperly allows the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to bring an administrative action to collect CMPs because the Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in such cases.
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.
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.
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.
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 January 15, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a proposed rule that would set a maximum nicotine level in combusted cigarettes and certain other combusted tobacco products.
Maximum Nicotine Level
FDA proposes to “make cigarettes and certain other combusted tobacco products minimally addictive or nonaddictive by limiting the nicotine yield of these products.” Specifically, the proposed rule would set a maximum nicotine content level of 0.70 milligrams of nicotine per gram of total tobacco. This would represent a drastic reduction in nicotine content. By comparison, one recent study — which FDA cited in the proposed rule — reported that the average nicotine content in the top 100 cigarette brands of 2017 was 17.2 milligrams of nicotine per gram of total tobacco.
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.
In addition to cookies that are necessary for website operation, this website uses cookies and other tracking tools for various purposes, including to provide enhanced functionality and measure website performance. To learn more about our information practices, please visit our Global Privacy Notice.
