
US Supreme Court tosses ruling faulting FDA for denying flavored vape products
WASHINGTON, April 2 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court threw out on Wednesday a judicial decision that found the U.S. Food and Drug Administration acted unlawfully in refusing to let two e-cigarette companies sell flavored vape products that regulators consider a health risk to youths.
The justices in a unanimous ruling threw out a lower court's ruling that the FDA had failed to follow proper legal procedures under a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act when it rejected the applications by the companies, Triton Distribution and Vapetasia, to sell these nicotine-containing products.
An FDA rule that took effect in 2016 under Democratic President Barack Obama deemed e-cigarettes to be tobacco products that, like traditional cigarettes, are subject to agency review under a 2009 federal law called the Tobacco Control Act. The law requires manufacturers of e-cigarette products to apply for authorization to sell nicotine vaping devices and e-liquids.
Triton Distribution and Vapetasia filed FDA applications in 2020 for products with flavors such as sour grape, pink lemonade and crème brulee, and names including "Jimmy The Juice Man Peachy Strawberry" and "Suicide Bunny Mother's Milk and Cookies" - offerings that critics have said were designed to appeal to minors. The FDA denied the Triton and Vapetasia applications as well as hundreds of others by various companies involving more than a million flavored vape products.
During arguments in the case, a Justice Department lawyer arguing for the FDA said the companies knew throughout the application process that the agency was concerned about the fact that flavors are attractive to youth and about the addictive nature of nicotine, a chemical dangerous to developing brains.
In order to win regulatory approval, e-cigarette companies must demonstrate that a product would be "appropriate for the protection of the public health." That means that any health benefits - such as helping traditional cigarette smokers transition to generally less-harmful vaping - must outweigh the risks of bringing the new product to market.
The e-cigarette companies argued that the FDA improperly assessed their applications under a regulatory standard that differed from published guidance they had relied upon.
The FDA found that in 2020 nearly one in five high school students and almost one in 20 middle school students used e-cigarettes, making e-cigarettes "the most widely used tobacco product among youth by far."
The agency over the years has approved only 34 flavored e-cigarette varieties, all tobacco or menthol flavored. It maintains that it has not categorically banned flavored e-cigarette products. But companies seeking its approval to sell these products face an especially tough health benefits-versus-risk legal test as a result of the FDA's finding that flavored e-cigarettes pose a "known and substantial risk" to youth.
Triton and Vapetasia in 2021 asked the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the FDA's denial of their applications. The full slate of 5th Circuit judges ruled 10-6 that the FDA had been arbitrary and capricious, in violation of a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act, by denying the applications without considering plans by the companies to prevent underage access and use.
Seven other federal appellate courts had sided with the FDA in similar cases.
The Supreme Court on Nov. 25 also declined to hear an appeal by RJ Reynolds and other tobacco companies of a lower court's ruling upholding graphic health warnings required by the FDA on cigarette packs.
The Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has reined in the authority of federal agencies in a series of cases in recent years. In another high-profile case involving the FDA, the Supreme Court in June decided on procedural grounds to reject a bid by anti-abortion groups and doctors to restrict access to the abortion pill mifepristone.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
a day ago
- Reuters
Otsuka's kidney disease therapy trial results heat up battle with rival Vera
June 6 (Reuters) - Otsuka's (4578.T), opens new tab experimental therapy for a potentially life-threatening kidney disease more than halved severe levels of protein in the urine of patients, intensifying the battle for an effective new treatment with rival Vera Therapeutics (VERA.O), opens new tab. The Japan-based company said on Friday its therapy, sibeprenlimab, cut proteinuria levels by 51.2% in patients with Immunoglobulin A Nephropathy, also known as Berger's disease, at nine months in a late-stage trial. The data comes just days after Vera said its drug, atacicept, reduced protein levels in patients' urine by 46%, compared with a 7% reduction with a placebo, meeting the main goal of a 428-patient late-stage study. Shares of the U.S.-based drug developer slid 31% to $20.89. Analysts, however, said that though data from Otsuka's sibeprenlimab might look superior, it was unlikely that doctors would interpret it that way. The difference between the two datasets is not too clinically diverse to affect demand for Vera's drug, said Jefferies analyst Farzin Haque. Berger's disease causes abnormal protein buildup in the kidneys and could eventually lead to the organ's failure. Analysts have estimated the U.S. market for its treatments could be worth as much as $10 billion. Otsuka has already applied for the FDA's accelerated approval for its therapy to treat the disease. However, its sales would largely depend on whether the treatment can improve kidney function, analysts said. Even if the drug gains accelerated approval, Otsuka said it plans to study whether it can preserve the organ's ability to filter toxins from blood, measured as the glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). "The magnitude of the protein reduction should translate into eGFR preservation down the line, because ultimately that's what patients are going to be asking for," Dana Rizk, the trial's investigator and a professor of medicine at the University of Alabama in Birmingham, told Reuters. The study is expected to be completed in early 2026.


STV News
a day ago
- STV News
Trump says Elon Musk could face ‘serious consequences' if he backs Democrats
US President Donald Trump said he has no desire to repair his relationship with Elon Musk, and warned that his former ally and campaign benefactor could face 'serious consequences' if he tries to help Democrats in upcoming elections. Trump told NBC's Kristen Welker in a phone interview that he has no plans to make up with tech entrepreneur Mr Musk. Asked specifically if he thought his relationship with the mega-billionaire chief executive of Tesla and SpaceX was over, Mr Trump responded: 'I would assume so, yeah.' 'I'm too busy doing other things,' Trump continued. Alarming — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 7, 2025 'You know, I won an election in a landslide. I gave him (Mr Musk) a lot of breaks, long before this happened, I gave him breaks in my first administration, and saved his life in my first administration, I have no intention of speaking to him.' The US President also issued a warning amid speculation that Musk could back Democratic legislators and candidates in the 2026 mid-term elections. 'If he does, he'll have to pay the consequences for that,' Trump told NBC, though he declined to share what those consequences would be. Mr Musk's businesses have many lucrative federal contracts. The US President's latest comments suggest Musk is moving from close ally to a potential new target for Trump, who has aggressively wielded the powers of his office to crack down on critics and punish perceived enemies. As a major government contractor, Mr Musk's businesses could be particularly vulnerable to retribution. Trump has already threatened to cut Mr Musk's contracts, calling it an easy way to save money. The dramatic rupture between the President and the world's richest man began this week with Musk's public criticism of Trump's 'big beautiful bill' pending on Capitol Hill. Musk has warned that the bill will increase the federal deficit and called it a 'disgusting abomination'. Trump criticised Musk in the Oval Office, and before long, he and Musk began trading bitterly personal attacks on social media, sending the White House and Republican congressional leaders scrambling to assess the fallout. As the back-and-forth intensified, Musk suggested Trump should be impeached and claimed without evidence that the government was concealing information about the President's association with infamous paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. PA Media Mr Trump's spending plans appeared to cause the rift initially (AP). Musk appeared by Saturday morning to have deleted his posts about Epstein. In an interview, US vice president JD Vance tried to downplay the feud. He said Mr Musk was making a 'huge mistake' going after Mr Trump, but called him an 'emotional guy' who was becoming frustrated. 'I hope that eventually Elon comes back into the fold. Maybe that's not possible now because he's gone so nuclear,' Vance said. Vance called Musk an 'incredible entrepreneur,' and said that Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which sought to cut US government spending and laid off or pushed out thousands of workers, was 'really good'. Vance made the comments in an interview with 'manosphere' comedian Theo Von, who last month joked about snorting drugs off a mixed-race baby and the sexuality of men in the US Navy when he opened for Trump at a military base in Qatar. The Vance interview was taped on Thursday as Musk's posts were unfurling on X, the social media network the billionaire owns. During the interview, Von showed the vice president Musk's claim that Trump's administration has not released all the records related to Epstein because Trump is mentioned in them. Vice President Vance on what it's like to be Trump's VP: 'It is my job, obviously, to provide the President honest counsel…he talks to everybody. I think it's why he's in touch with normal people.' — Vice President JD Vance (@VP) June 7, 2025 Vance responded to that, saying: 'Absolutely not. Donald Trump didn't do anything wrong with Jeffrey Epstein.' 'This stuff is just not helpful,' Vance said in response to another post shared by Musk calling for Trump to be impeached and replaced with Vance. 'It's totally insane. The President is doing a good job.' Vance also defended the bill that has drawn Musk's ire, and said its central goal was not to cut spending but to extend the 2017 tax cuts approved in Trump's first term. The bill would slash spending and taxes but also leave some 10.9 million more people without health insurance and spike deficits by 2.4 trillion dollars (£1.77trn) over the decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. 'It's a good bill,' Vance said. 'It's not a perfect bill.' Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country


The Herald Scotland
2 days ago
- The Herald Scotland
Republican infighting fuels concern about Trump tax bill's chances
With Republicans holding the slimmest of majorities in both chambers of Congress and with Democrats showing no sign of wanting to help Trump notch a major win to begin his new administration, lawmakers from Trump's own party are sounding apprehensive about threading the needle before their self-imposed July 4 deadline to get something to the president's desk for signature into law. More: Trump and Musk's bromance ends after personal attacks over criticism of tax bill "We're anxious to get to work on it," Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, told reporters earlier in the week as Republicans and Musk started publicly airing their complaints about the effort. Adding to the challenge: Some of the very House GOP members who last month voted in favor of their 1,100-page version of Trump's tax and policy plan started finding faults of their own that they say meant they'd probably have been a 'no' if they had the chance to do it again. Presidents often aim high to start terms Presidents often try in their first year to build on the momentum of their elections to get major legislation approved. For Joe Biden, it was an infrastructure bill. For Barack Obama, it was overhauling healthcare insurance. For George W. Bush, it was overhauling public education. Trump leapt into action in 2025 with an unprecedented pace of executive orders: 157 through May 23. When he turned to legislation, he persuaded Republican congressional leaders to package all his priorities into one bill, rather than splitting taxes and border security into two different bills, to complete the debate in one fell swoop. More: Everything's an 'emergency': How Trump's executive order record pace is testing the courts Lawmakers often shy away from piling too much into one bill because each contentious provision spurs its own opposition. But faced with the prospect of unanimous Democratic opposition, Trump opted for a strategy that focuses on GOP priorities such as tax relief and border security while personally lobbying reluctant Republicans to stay in line. "Americans have given us a mandate for bold and profound change," Trump told Congress in a speech March 4. "I call on all of my Republican friends in the Senate and House to work as fast as they can to get this Bill to MY DESK before the Fourth of JULY," he added in a social media post about three months later, on June 2. Musk opposition makes waves Trump's efforts worked in the Republican-led House, which after several days of negotiations and an all-night floor debate voted 215-214 in favor of a plan that had the full backing of the White House. Getting the measure through the Senate - even with the GOP in charge needing just a simple majority of 51 votes - is proving to be its own elusive challenge. Musk, the former head of Trump's bureaucracy-slashing Department of Government Efficiency, spent this past week unloading on the House-passed bill for spending too much money. He called the legislation "pork-filled" and a "disgusting abomination," and urged lawmakers to "KILL the BILL." More: The post-fight fallout from Trump-Musk battle could get even uglier While Musk's barrage ignited a war with Trump and left many Republicans cringing, deficit hawks in the GOP said they appreciated the world's richest man also pushing for deeper spending cuts from the U.S. government. "I welcome people like Elon Musk that try to hold our feet to the fire," said Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Missouri. "We often disappoint our voters when we don't do the cuts that we campaign on, when we're not fiscally responsible." But Rep. Don Bacon, R-Nebraska, who served in the Air Force for 30 years, said the division between Trump and Musk wasn't a good look for his party, especially when it's trying to advance the primary piece of legislation on the president's agenda. "It's just not helpful," Bacon said. "When you have division, divided teams don't perform as well." 'The opposite of conservative': Sen. Paul on bill Several pockets of Republican senators have voiced concerns about the House-passed legislation. Each group has their issue that they want addressed, and each one presents a hurdle for Trump and GOP leaders like Thune as they try to cobble together a winning 51-vote coalition that can also make it back through the House for another final vote. The Senate factions include one group seeking to cut more spending because the Congressional Budget Office said the House-passed plan would add $2.4 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. Others are worried about cutting Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for low-income families. And another handful of senators say they are worried about the House-passed bill rolling back renewable energy tax credits for solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear energy. "There are many of us who recognize that what came out of the House was pretty aggressive in how it seeks to wind down or phase out many of the energy tax credit provisions," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. "I happen to think that we've got tax policies that are working to help advance our energy initiatives around the country, as diverse and as varied as they are. Wouldn't we want to continue those investments? "This bill is the opposite of conservative, and we should not pass it," added Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, in a June 4 social media post that raised concerns about the nation's debt limit. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley is one of the outspoken Republicans taking issue with the House-passed bill's provisions that would cut nearly $800 billion during the next decade from Medicaid and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, cost 7.8 million people their health insurance. "I don't want to see rural hospitals close and I don't want to see any benefits cut in my state," Hawley said. Trump and his allies contend spending cuts of $1.6 trillion are the most ever approved in a House bill and that the tax cuts will spur economic growth to offset the costs. Trump got personal this week in calling Paul's ideas "crazy" in a social media post and said the people of Kentucky "can't stand him." More: Trump lashes out at Sen. Rand Paul over opposition to big tax bill House Speaker Mike Johnson, a staunch Trump ally, told reporters June 4 that few people are going to like everything in an 1,100-page bill. But the Louisiana Republican said the measure he helped craft in the House was carefully calibrated to gain wide support. "I hope everybody will evaluate that - in both parties, and everybody - and recognize, 'Wow, the benefits of this far outweigh anything that I don't like out it,'" Johnson said. Senate dropping local tax deductions would be 'radioactive': Rep. Lalota Any changes made by the Senate will force another vote in the House before the bill can become law - and that's where the math can get tricky. Republican senators are talking about tinkering with a key compromise that Trump and Johnson signed off on in the House that raised the federal deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) from $10,000 to $40,000 for people earning less than $500,000 per year. That provision is important to GOP lawmakers from high-tax states such as California, New York and New Jersey who supported the House bill that passed through the 435-seat chamber by only a one-vote margin. More: Senate Republicans plan to amend SALT tax deduction in Trump's sweeping bill The Senate aims to cut back that provision. But Rep. Nick Lalota, R-New York, told reporters on June 4 that revisiting the tax issue "would be like digging up safely-buried radioactive waste." House members scouring through the bill they voted on weeks ago are also finding unfamiliar provisions in the version that they say they would have opposed. For example, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, said in a social media post June 3 that the Senate needs to strip out language she hadn't noticed earlier that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence. Rep. Mike Flood, R-Nebraska, said he opposed a section that aims to hinder federal judges from enforcing their court orders. Trump sought the provision to prevent judges from blocking policies largely spelled out via his executive orders. Senate could drop contentious provisions House members risked supporting Even though Republicans control both chambers of Congress, the Senate could drop or fail to approve contentious parts that GOP House colleagues in competitive districts already went out on a limb to support. It's happened many times before - with sizable political consequences. The concept even has a name: Getting BTU'd. That refers to a 1993 House vote on a controversial energy tax during the first year of Bill Clinton's presidency based on British thermal units. House Democrats lost 54 seats in the 1994 election - and control of the chamber for the first time in 40 years - in part because of supporting the BTU tax that the Senate never debated. John Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College, has said a book about such votes could be called "Profiles in Futility." Another example was the 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act, a bill which Obama supported as president that aimed to limit the emissions of heat-trapping gases from power plants, vehicles and other industrial sources. The Democrat-controlled House narrowly approved the measure 219-212 but the Senate never took it up. Critics said it would raise the cost of energy. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a non-profit libertarian think tank that opposed the measure, counted 28 House Democrats from coal states who lost their seats in the 2010 mid-term election after voting for the bill. Fast forward to 2025 and Republicans are the ones facing a similar dynamic. Musk, who contributed about $290 million of his personal fortune to help Republicans including Trump win last November, slammed House lawmakers who voted for the president's legislative package."Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong," Musk wrote June 3 on social media. But House Republicans who voted for the legislation, including some who also demanded deeper spending cuts when it was in their hands, said they're not worried about the package falling apart and coming back to haunt them. They say that's because they did fight for more budget cuts. "This wasn't a hard vote. It was hard going through the process to get more, and you can always do better," said Rep. Ralph Norman, R-South Carolina. "But look at what Donald Trump's done, the great things that are contributing to cutting the deficit." Rep. David Schweikert, R-Arizona, who represents a competitive toss-up district, noted that he's introduced multiple bills to trim federal spending. "If Mr. Musk wants to be helpful, what he should do is start to understand that those of us in a 50-50 district who have shown up with actual policy solutions that offset every penny of this bill," he said. Leaving Washington for the weekend, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force Once on June 6 that he wasn't worried about Musk and that he remained confident he'd get "tremendous support" in the Senate to pass the bill. "I don't know of anybody who's going to vote against it," the president said, before adding: "Maybe Rand Paul." For his part, Johnson told reporters June 4 that he wasn't concerned about House Republicans losing seats in 2026. Predicting that the Senate would find the necessary votes on the president's tax bill, the speaker said he expects Americans will see the benefits of Trump's efforts before the next election. "Am I concerned about the effect of this on the midterms? I'm not," Johnson said. "I have no concern whatsoever. I am absolutely convinced that we are going to win the midterms and grow the House majority because we are delivering for the American majority and fulfilling our campaign promises." Contributing: Reuters