Latest news with #R.J.Reynolds
21-06-2025
- Business
Supreme Court widens court options for vaping companies pushing back against FDA rules
WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court sided with e-cigarette companies on Friday in a ruling making it easier to sue over Food and Drug Administration decisions blocking their products from the multibillion-dollar vaping market. The 7-2 opinion comes as companies push back against a yearslong federal regulatory crackdown on electronic cigarettes. It's expected to give the companies more control over which judges hear lawsuits filed against the agency. The justices went the other way on vaping in an April decision, siding with the FDA in a ruling upholding a sweeping block on most sweet-flavored vapes instituted after a spike in youth vaping. The current case was filed by R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., which had sold a line of popular berry and menthol-flavored vaping products before the agency started regulating the market under the Tobacco Control Act in 2016. The agency refused to authorize the company's Vuse Alto products, an order that 'sounded the death knell for a significant portion of the e-cigarette market,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion. The company is based in North Carolina and typically would have been limited to challenging the FDA in a court there or in the agency's home base of Washington. Instead, it joined forces with Texas businesses that sell the products and sued there. The conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the lawsuit to go forward, finding that anyone whose business is hurt by the FDA decision can sue. The agency appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that R.J. Reynolds was attempting to find a court favorable to its arguments, a practice often referred to as 'judge shopping.' The justices, though, found that the law does allow other businesses affected by the FDA decisions, like e-cigarette sellers, to sue in their home states. In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said she would have sided with the agency and limited where the cases can be filed. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids called the majority decision disappointing, saying it would allow manufacturers to 'judge shop,' though it said the companies will still have to contend with the Supreme Court's April decision. Attorney Ryan Watson, who represented R.J. Reynolds, said that the court recognized that agency decisions can have devastating downstream effects on retailers and other businesses, and the decision 'ensures that the courthouse doors are not closed' to them. ___
Boston Globe
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court allows vape companies to pick courts to hear challenges
Advertisement Liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the opinion, which sent the case back to a lower court for more proceedings. Jackson wrote that the majority's opinion allows Reynolds to make an 'end run around … venue restrictions.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The FDA had told the justices that R.J. Reynolds and other electronic cigarette manufacturers were gaming court system rules by filing the vast majority of product-denial appeals in the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, based in New Orleans, even though they were based in other appeals court circuits. The tactic was hindering the FDA's ability to regulate vapes that are used by hundreds of thousands of teenagers, the agency said. In the case before the justices, the 5th Circuit — widely seen as more sympathetic to the companies' arguments than other circuits — overturned the FDA's denial of an R.J. Reynolds application. Advertisement The electronic cigarette ruling was one of six decisions issued Friday, with at least a week left in the Supreme Court's term. Ten decisions remain, including cases involving the legality of age-verification laws to access online pornography and nationwide court orders blocking President Trump's ban on birthright citizenship. In addition to the vape decision, the Supreme Court on Friday revived lawsuits brought by US victims of terrorist attacks in Israel against the Palestine Liberation Organization. The opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., upheld a 2019 federal law passed in response to attacks that allows Americans to sue. The court said that law does not violate the rights of the PLO. In a 7-2 decision, the justices also cleared the way for fuel producers to sue the Environmental Protection Agency over California's stricter standards for vehicle emissions. California's efforts are already in flux after being targeted by Trump and Republicans in Congress. Under the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, manufacturers must get FDA approval to sell some existing products, as well as new products, that are marketed in more than one state. The Vuse line of menthol vapes are the ones in question in the R.J. Reynolds case. Ryan J. Watson, who is representing R.J. Reynolds, told the justices at oral arguments that the company was permitted to file a challenge in the 5th Circuit because the act allows 'any person adversely affected' by a denial to file a challenge in the District of Columbia Circuit or the 'circuit in which such person resides or has their principal place of business.' Advertisement R.J. Reynolds partnered with a Texas vape store and the Mississippi Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores Association to bring the challenge to the FDA ruling. The 5th Circuit covers Texas and Mississippi, while R.J. Reynolds is in the 4th Circuit. Vivek Suri, an assistant to the solicitor general, arguing on behalf of the government, said Congress never meant for retailers or their representatives, rather than manufacturers, to be parties to such litigation when it passed the act. He pointed out that retailers aren't notified when the FDA rejects manufacturers' applications to market vaping products and said the tactic defeats the venue restrictions laid out in the law. But the Supreme Court said Friday it has long established a broad interpretation of what it means to be adversely affected by a law, including in the category anyone even 'arguably within the zone of interests' that the statute regulates. Vape industry groups applauded the ruling. Watson, the attorney for R.J. Reynolds, said the court 'recognized that federal agency action can have downstream effects that can be devastating for parties that are not the most direct target of the agency's action.' The ruling ensures that 'the courthouse doors are not closed for those adversely affected parties,' he said. Yolonda C. Richardson, president and CEO of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said the decision will bolster efforts to market addictive products to young people. The ruling 'gives e-cigarette manufacturers an open invitation to forum-shop for friendly courts in their relentless quest to lure and addict kids with flavored, nicotine-loaded products,' she said. In her dissent to Friday's ruling, Jackson noted that two other appeals courts had rejected similar challenges filed by other manufacturers of flavored electronic cigarettes before R.J. Reynolds filed its appeal to the 5th Circuit. Advertisement 'It thus became (perhaps) imperative from RJR Vapor's perspective that its own lawsuit challenging the FDA's denial of its flavored e-cigarette marketing applications be filed somewhere else,' Jackson wrote.
The Hill
20-06-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Supreme court widens court options for vaping companies pushing back against FDA rules
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court sided with e-cigarette companies on Friday in a ruling making it easier to sue over Food and Drug Administration decisions blocking their products from the multibillion-dollar vaping market. The 7-2 opinion comes as companies push back against a yearslong federal regulatory crackdown on electronic cigarettes. It's expected to give the companies more control over which judges hear lawsuits filed against the agency. The justices went the other way on vaping in an April decision, siding with the FDA in a ruling upholding a sweeping block on most sweet-flavored vapes instituted after a spike in youth vaping. The current case was filed by R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., which had sold a line of popular berry and menthol-flavored vaping products before the agency started regulating the market under the Tobacco Control Act in 2016. The agency refused to authorize the company's Vuse Alto products, an order that 'sounded the death knell for a significant portion of the e-cigarette market,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion. The company is based in North Carolina and typically would have been limited to challenging the FDA in a court there or in the agency's home base of Washington. Instead, it joined forces with Texas businesses that sell the products and sued there. The conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the lawsuit to go forward, finding that anyone whose business is hurt by the FDA decision can sue. The agency appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that R.J. Reynolds was trying to find a court friendly to its arguments, a practice often called 'judge shopping.' The justices, though, found that the law does allow other businesses affected by the FDA decisions, like e-cigarette sellers, to sue in their home states. In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said she would have sided with the agency and limited where the cases can be filed. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids called the majority decision disappointing, saying it would allow manufacturers to 'judge shop,' though it said the companies will still have to contend with the Supreme Court's April decision. Attorney Ryan Watson, who represented R.J. Reynolds, said that the court recognized that agency decisions can have devastating downstream effects on retailers and other businesses, and the decision 'ensures that the courthouse doors are not closed' to them. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the Supreme Court at
Boston Globe
20-06-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
Supreme court widens court options for vaping companies pushing back against FDA rules
The current case was filed by R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., which had sold a line of popular berry and menthol-flavored vaping products before the agency started regulating the market under the Tobacco Control Act in 2016. Advertisement The agency refused to authorize the company's Vuse Alto products, an order that 'sounded the death knell for a significant portion of the e-cigarette market,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The company is based in North Carolina and typically would have been limited to challenging the FDA in a court there or in the agency's home base of Washington. Instead, it joined forces with Texas businesses that sell the products and sued there. The conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the lawsuit to go forward, finding that anyone whose business is hurt by the FDA decision can sue. The agency appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that R.J. Reynolds was trying to find a court friendly to its arguments, a practice often called 'judge shopping.' Advertisement The justices, though, found that the law does allow other businesses affected by the FDA decisions, like e-cigarette sellers, to sue in their home states. In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said she would have sided with the agency and limited where the cases can be filed. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids called the majority decision disappointing, saying it would allow manufacturers to 'judge shop,' though it said the companies will still have to contend with the Supreme Court's April decision. Attorney Ryan Watson, who represented R.J. Reynolds, said that the court recognized that agency decisions can have devastating downstream effects on retailers and other businesses, and the decision 'ensures that the courthouse doors are not closed' to them.
Winnipeg Free Press
20-06-2025
- Business
- Winnipeg Free Press
Supreme court widens court options for vaping companies pushing back against FDA rules
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court sided with e-cigarette companies on Friday in a ruling making it easier to sue over Food and Drug Administration decisions blocking their products from the multibillion-dollar vaping market. The 7-2 opinion comes as companies push back against a yearslong federal regulatory crackdown on electronic cigarettes. It's expected to give the companies more control over which judges hear lawsuits filed against the agency. The justices went the other way on vaping in an April decision, siding with the FDA in a ruling upholding a sweeping block on most sweet-flavored vapes instituted after a spike in youth vaping. The current case was filed by R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., which had sold a line of popular berry and menthol-flavored vaping products before the agency started regulating the market under the Tobacco Control Act in 2016. The agency refused to authorize the company's Vuse Alto products, an order that 'sounded the death knell for a significant portion of the e-cigarette market,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion. The company is based in North Carolina and typically would have been limited to challenging the FDA in a court there or in the agency's home base of Washington. Instead, it joined forces with Texas businesses that sell the products and sued there. The conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the lawsuit to go forward, finding that anyone whose business is hurt by the FDA decision can sue. The agency appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that R.J. Reynolds was trying to find a court friendly to its arguments, a practice often called 'judge shopping.' The justices, though, found that the law does allow other businesses affected by the FDA decisions, like e-cigarette sellers, to sue in their home states. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said she would have sided with the agency and limited where the cases can be filed. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids called the majority decision disappointing, saying it would allow manufacturers to 'judge shop,' though it said the companies will still have to contend with the Supreme Court's April decision. Attorney Ryan Watson, who represented R.J. Reynolds, said that the court recognized that agency decisions can have devastating downstream effects on retailers and other businesses, and the decision 'ensures that the courthouse doors are not closed' to them. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the Supreme Court at
