Harris Sliwoski: US Supreme Court Weighs in on Vaping

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Important Case on Vaping

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in a pivotal case that could reshape the vaping landscape.

The case stems from an FDA appeal challenging a lower court ruling that found the agency improperly rejected nicotine vape product applications. The case centers on the FDA’s refusal to approve flavored vaping products and whether it followed legal procedures.

The Supreme Court is reviewing whether the FDA broke procedural fairness laws by changing its standards mid-process

The Dispute: Flavor Bans and Procedural Fairness

Two companies—Triton Distribution and Vapetasia—brought the suit, arguing that the FDA unfairly shifted its evaluation standards mid-process. They contend that the agency’s inconsistent approach denied them a fair opportunity to meet regulatory requirements.

The companies argued that flavored e-cigarettes help adult smokers quit combustible tobacco. However, their marketing practices faced scrutiny, with product names such as “Juice Man Peachy Strawberry,” “Iced Pineapple Express,” and “Killer Kustard Blueberry” raising concerns about their appeal to younger consumers.

The FDA, represented by Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, argued that the companies provided no evidence to support their claims. According to the FDA, the health risks posed by flavored vaping products to youth far outweigh any potential smoking cessation benefits for adults.

The Regulatory Context

The Tobacco Control Act requires companies to prove new tobacco products protect public health, including reducing risks to youth vulnerable to nicotine addiction. This standard includes assessing the potential risks to young people, a demographic particularly vulnerable to nicotine addiction.

Since the FDA assumed regulatory authority over e-cigarettes in 2016, it has rejected millions of applications for flavored vaping products. The agency has consistently cited concerns about the appeal of such products to minors as a primary justification for these rejections.

Implications of the Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court’s mid-2025 ruling could reshape the vaping industry and federal agency regulations. A decision in favor of Triton Distribution and Vapetasia could:

  1. Limit Regulatory Power: Set stricter procedural requirements for agencies like the FDA when implementing new rules or changing standards.
  2. Impact Public Health Policies: Potentially weaken the FDA’s ability to restrict flavored vaping products aimed at reducing youth nicotine addiction.
  3. Shape Future Litigation: Establish a precedent for challenging federal agencies on procedural fairness grounds.

A ruling for the FDA would affirm its authority to regulate vaping products and protect vulnerable youth.

The Stakes for Public Health and Industry

This case highlights the tension between innovative consumer appeal and public health. Should public health outweigh consumer innovation? Can flavored vaping products ever balance their appeal to adults with the risks to youth? These are the questions at the heart of this high-stakes case.

The Supreme Court’s decision could reshape innovation and regulation. Follow our updates to see its impact on public health and vaping regulation.

Follow our updates to understand how the ruling will impact public health, the vaping industry, and future federal oversight.

Top 200 Cannabis Lawyers

We Support

Cannabis Law Journal – Contributing Authors

Editor – Sean Hocking

Author Bios

Canada
Matt Maurer – Minden Gross
Jeff Hergot – Wildboer Dellelce LLP

Costa Rica
Tim Morales – The Cannabis Industry Association Costa Rica

Nicaragua
Elvin Rodríguez Fabilena

USA

General
Julie Godard
Carl L Rowley -Thompson Coburn LLP

Arizona
Jerry Chesler – Chesler Consulting

California
Ian Stewart – Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Otis Felder – Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Lance Rogers – Greenspoon Marder – San Diego
Jessica McElfresh -McElfresh Law – San Diego
Tracy Gallegos – Partner – Fox Rothschild

Colorado
Adam Detsky – Knight Nicastro
Dave Rodman – Dave Rodman Law Group
Peter Fendel – CMR Real Estate Network
Nate Reed – CMR Real Estate Network

Florida
Matthew Ginder – Greenspoon Marder
David C. Kotler – Cohen Kotler

Illinois
William Bogot – Fox Rothschild

Massachusetts
Valerio Romano, Attorney – VGR Law Firm, PC

Nevada
Neal Gidvani – Snr Assoc: Greenspoon Marder
Phillip Silvestri – Snr Assoc: Greenspoon Marder

Tracy Gallegos – Associate Fox Rothschild

New Jersey

Matthew G. Miller – MG Miller Intellectual Property Law LLC
Daniel T. McKillop – Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC

New York
Gregory J. Ryan, Esq. Tesser, Ryan & Rochman, LLP
Tim Nolen Tesser, Ryan & Rochman, LLP
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Oregon
Paul Loney & Kristie Cromwell – Loney Law Group
William Stewart – Half Baked Labs

Pennsylvania
Andrew B. Sacks – Managing Partner Sacks Weston Diamond
William Roark – Principal Hamburg, Rubin, Mullin, Maxwell & Lupin
Joshua Horn – Partner Fox Rothschild

Washington DC
Teddy Eynon – Partner Fox Rothschild