Significant Cases

Subscribe to Significant Cases via RSS

Earlier this fall, a small manufacturer and retailer (the Plaintiffs) sued Virginia Attorney General (AG) Jason Miyares and Tax Commissioner James Alex (the Defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking to enjoin their enforcement of Virginia’s vapor product directory regime, Va. Code Ann. §§ 59.1-293.14 to .21, which the General Assembly passed in 2024.

This litigation is a recent addition to the growing list of legal challenges to state vapor product directories around the country—and the second to arise in federal courts within the Fourth Circuit. Like these other ongoing challenges, the Virginia case raises the issue of whether these state directory regimes are preempted under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).

On October 27, FDA appealed a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia that vacated the agency’s 2020 rule requiring graphic health warnings on cigarette packaging and advertisements.  This appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Eleventh Circuit, along with a separate challenge pending before the Fifth Circuit, may determine whether FDA’s second attempt to impose graphic health warnings on cigarettes will be successful.[1]

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.

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.

Over the past two years, at least 14 states have enacted laws requiring manufacturers of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) to certify the status of their federal premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) in order to be sold in the state. This year, several of these laws have been challenged, and a clear split is beginning to emerge among state courts regarding whether the state laws are enforceable.

In 2023, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) placed Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians (Twenty-Nine Palms), a federally recognized Indian tribe that sells cigarettes on sovereign reservations in California, on the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act’s (PACT Act’s) noncompliant list (NCL). The PACT Act generally prohibits common carriers from shipping products to or from companies on the NCL. After ATF placed Twenty-Nine Palms on the NCL, the tribe sued ATF and its parent agency, the Department of Justice (DOJ), in federal court. This case is worth following because it involves key issues related to ATF’s authority to enforce the PACT Act against federally recognized Indian tribes and ATF’s interpretation of key sections of the PACT Act.

In June, the Appellate Court of Illinois upheld an assessment of over $314 million against Sam’s Club for unpaid county cigarette excise taxes, including a 10% late fee, a 25% penalty, and accrued interest. The assessment arose from Sam’s Club’s alleged failure to pay taxes on cigarettes that it sold to out-of-county retailers from 2009 to 2016. Following the June ruling, the company now appears poised to bring its arguments to the state’s highest court in a case illustrating the ambiguities of state and local excise taxation laws.

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.