Supreme Court Rebukes Flavored Vape Makers in Unanimous Ruling – ryan

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned a lower-court ruling that had found the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) acted unlawfully in denying two electronic cigarette companies permission to sell flavored vaping products, which regulators view as a health risk to young people.

Newsweek reached out to the FDA by submission form on Wednesday for comment.

Why It Matters

The Trump administration in 2019 implemented a ban on fruit-flavored tobacco products when youth vaping hit record highs and such products were seen as a major factor in that rise.

In September 2024, President Donald Trump said he would “save vaping again” as part of a longer post on Truth Social in which he said: “I saved flavored vaping in 2019, and it greatly helped people get off smoking. I raised the age to 21, keeping it away from the ‘kids.’ Kamala and Joe want everything banned, killing small businesses all over the country. I’ll save vaping again!”

What To Know

Triton Distribution and Vapetasia applied in 2020 for products with flavors such as sour grape, pink lemonade and crème brûlée, with names including “Jimmy The Juice Man Peachy Strawberry” and “Suicide Bunny Mother’s Milk and Cookies.” The FDA during the Biden administration denied the applications.

Critics have alleged that the companies designed these products to target minors, but that was not the center of the issue for the Supreme Court, which examined mainly if the FDA adhered to its standards when it assessed the applications.

The companies mainly alleged that the FDA had assessed their applications under a regulatory standard that differed from published guidance, which they had used in their decision-making. However, in a unanimous decision, the justices dismissed the lower court’s conclusion that the FDA violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the decisions, wrote that, “in the end, we cannot say that the FDA improperly changed its position with respect to scientific evidence” and other guidelines. Alito added that the “affected parties” may have “the impression that the agency would apply a less demanding standard of proof than is evident in the denial orders” the FDA issued.

The FDA rejected these applications as just two of hundreds submitted by companies at the time. Lawyers for the FDA argued that the companies were well aware throughout the process that the agency was concerned about the concern over flavored products and their appeal to minors.

Yolonda Richardson, president and CEO of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called the decision “a major victory for the health of America’s kids and efforts to protect them from the flavored electronic cigarettes that have fueled a youth nicotine addiction crisis.”

What the Supreme Court Said About CBD

In a related decision, the court also granted truck driver Douglas Horn the right to sue California-based Medical Marijuana Inc. for triple damages over a CBD hemp product he claimed had been falsely advertised as free of marijuana’s active ingredients, but he lost his job as a result of its use.

The court split in its decision 5-4, but the decision passes no judgment over the driver’s underlying claim. It does, however, prove another knockback on protections from companies that make such products and how they market them to the public.

Medical Marijuana Inc. has consistently denied Horn’s account and said he can’t sue for higher damages because he is claiming personal injury rather than harm to business.

Horn said he started using the products as a means of treating chronic shoulder and back pain following an accident, and he chose them specifically for the fact they claimed to be free of THC. He subsequently failed a drug test and confirmed the product did have THC in it.

Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh offered differing opinions on the matter: Barrett supported Horn’s claim, calling it the better argument to seek damages “regardless of whether the loss resulted from a personal injury,” while Kavanaugh argued that “Rico’s categorical exclusion of personal-injury suits” should have prevented Horn’s case.

What People Are Saying

Dr. Devika Rao, a pediatric pulmonologist at UT Southwestern Medical Centertold Newsweek: “Research has consistently shown that enticing flavors of electronic cigarettes are a major reason why kids start vaping. They’ve also been associated with why adolescents continue to vape and do so with more frequency. Because they are so addictive, particularly to the developing adolescent brain, even one use can lead to a lifetime of vaping. It’s a major health issue for today’s youth, which is why the U.S. surgeon general in 2018 declared vaping an epidemic.”

What Happens Next

The Justice merely rejected the earlier, lower-court ruling, meaning the decision is not binding and the FDA could change its approach in light of Trump’s promise to “save vaping again.”

This article includes reporting by The Associated Press.

Update, 4/2/2025, 12:58 p.m. ET: This article has been updated with additional information, context and comment.