Unanimous Supreme Court upholds FDA block of flavored vapes
A unanimous Supreme Court on Wednesday backed the Food and Drug Administration's refusal to authorize the sale of kid-friendly flavored e-cigarettes and vapes, including the flavors "Killer Kustard Blueberry," "Rainbow Road," and "Pineapple Express."
Justice Samuel Alito, in his opinion for the court, rejected the manufacturers' claims that the agency had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of federal law by changing the requirements for product approval in the middle of the process.
"In the end, we cannot say that the FDA improperly changed its position with respect to scientific evidence, comparative efficacy, or device type," Alito wrote. He returned the case to a lower court for further review.
The ruling effectively holds the line on the government's decision to severely limit the number of flavored tobacco products legally available in the U.S. market out of concerns over the impact on children.
MORE: Kid-friendly e-cigarette flavors driving increase in sales, report finds
Kid-friendly flavors, such as fruit, candy, mint, menthol and desserts -- which are largely not approved by the FDA and are currently sold on store shelves illegally -- have been fueling an explosion in retail sales of e-cigarettes.
While vaping among youth is declining, more than 1.6 million children use the products, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nearly 90% of them consume illicit flavored brands.
"Today's ruling is a major victory for the health of America's kids and efforts to protect them from the flavored e-cigarettes that have fueled a youth nicotine addiction crisis," said Yolanda Richardson, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, an advocacy group. She noted the FDA has denied over 26 million flavored e-cigarette product applications so far.
"While the FDA has authorized the sale of only 34 e-cigarette products, manufacturers continue to flood the market with thousands of illegal, unauthorized products," Richardson said in a statement. "To end this crisis, the FDA must deny marketing applications for flavored e-cigarettes and step up enforcement efforts to clear the market of illegal products. Today's ruling should spur the FDA to act quickly to do so."
The companies -- White Lion Investments LLC and Vapetasia LLC -- did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment on the Supreme Court's ruling.
Since 2009, federal law requires sellers of new nicotine products to provide regulators with scientific evidence to show that the products would promote public health, but the statute does not spell out specifically what evidence is necessary and sufficient. The FDA's guidance on how to meet that requirement was at the center of the case.
While the first Trump administration had taken a hard line against the marketing and sale sweet and candy flavored vapes, President Donald Trump said during the campaign that he wants to "save" flavored vapes. It's not clear how the FDA, newly under his control, may modify regulations around flavored vapes or alter the approval process.
MORE: Supreme Court divided over FDA block on kid-friendly flavored vapes
Despite their loss in the case, vape manufacturers are able to reapply for approval with the FDA in a new application and attempt to show how benefits of the product to public health would outweigh the dangers to teens.
"In light of the statutory text and the well-documented and serious risks flavored e-cigarette products pose to youth, it should have come as no surprise that applicants would need to submit rigorous scientific evidence showing that the benefits of their products would outweigh those risks," Justice Sonia Sotomayor concluded in a short concurring opinion in the case.
Unanimous Supreme Court upholds FDA block of flavored vapes originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oklahoma inmate Richard Glossip to face new murder trial but without death penalty
Oklahoma's top prosecutor said Monday that the state intends to pursue a new murder trial against Richard Glossip but without the death penalty after the U.S. Supreme Court vacated his capital conviction in a rare victory for a death row prisoner. State Attorney General Gentner Drummond's decision to retry Glossip, 62, on a first-degree murder charge came out of a status conference hearing. Drummond said in a news release that the evidence still implicates Glossip in the 1997 murder of Oklahoma City motel owner Barry Van Treese. Glossip, a motel manager working for Van Treese, has maintained his innocence while on death row for almost three decades. While Drummond, a Republican, has not agreed with Glossip's innocence claims, he was supportive of the Supreme Court's ruling in February, when the majority of justices agreed, as Drummond put it, that "it is now an undeniable fact that he did not receive a fair trial." Drummond said Monday that he would ensure Glossip now receives an impartial trial. "While it was clear to me and to the U.S. Supreme Court that Mr. Glossip did not receive a fair trial, I have never proclaimed his innocence," Drummond said in a statement. "After the high court remanded the matter back to district court, my office thoroughly reviewed the merits of the case against Richard Glossip and concluded that sufficient evidence exists to secure a murder conviction." Oklahoma County District Attorney Vicki Behenna, a Democrat, had previously indicated that Glossip would not be eligible for the death penalty now if he were to be retried. Drummond said he would seek a life sentence for Glossip at his next trial. "While I cannot go back 25 years and handle the case in the proper way that would have ensured true justice, I still have a duty to seek the justice that is available today," he added. The continuation of the state's prosecution against Glossip resumes a twisting case that saw him dodge death several times with nine separate execution dates that had to be postponed. Various courts delayed the executions as he appealed, while state corrections officials also came under scrutiny a decade ago for botched execution attempts. But Glossip's case had been championed in recent years by a bipartisan group of Oklahoma legislators after an independent report they commissioned in 2022 found that "no reasonable jury hearing the complete record would convict Glossip of first-degree murder." The report centered on the state's primary witness, Justin Sneed, who had confirmed to the report's investigators that he had discussions with multiple family members about "recanting" his testimony over an 11-year period. Investigators also said the district attorney's case file included documentation describing how the state provided Sneed information "so he could conform his testimony to match the evidence" from other witnesses. Glossip's original 1998 conviction was overturned in 2001, when a state appeals court found that the evidence against him was weak. But the state took him to trial again, and a second jury found him guilty in 2004. At Glossip's trial, Sneed, a motel handyman, admitted that he had killed Van Treese, but said that it was at Glossip's direction and that he had been promised $10,000. In exchange for testifying against Glossip, Sneed received a life sentence while Glossip was given the death penalty. Prosecutors said Glossip orchestrated the plot because he was embezzling from the motel and feared being fired. The Supreme Court on Monday tossed out Glossip's capital conviction in a 5-3 ruling. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate, presumably because he was involved in the case when he was on a federal appeals court that includes Oklahoma. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority's ruling that prosecutors "knew Sneed's statements were false" and that "because Sneed's testimony was the only direct evidence of Glossip's guilt of capital murder, the jury's assessment of Sneed's credibility was necessarily determinative here." "Hence, there is a reasonable likelihood that correcting Sneed's testimony would have affected the judgment of the jury," she added. After the Supreme Court's decision, Glossip was moved off death row, but was held without bail in the Oklahoma County Detention Center on a first-degree murder charge. A next court date in Glossip's case is scheduled for June 17. Glossip's attorney, Don Knight, did not immediately comment about the prosecutors' decision, but he welcomed the Supreme Court's ruling in February that spared his longtime client from the death chamber. "He had nine execution dates, three last meals, and obviously, to finally get relief has been huge for him," Knight said, "and he's thrilled beyond words." This article was originally published on
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Censorship is no way to get people to respect transgender rights
There was good and bad news for transgender rights in the U.S. last week. The good news was that a transgender high school athlete won two events in a girls' state track meet. And the bad news was that the Supreme Court allowed a school to censor a student's expression of the belief that there are only two genders. Suppressing ideas is never a good look in the U.S., whose Bill of Rights presupposes a freedom of speech that cannot be legislated away. And if we deny that freedom to anyone, then all of us — including transgender people — will lose. Free speech was on full display at the California track-and-field championship in Clovis, Calif. Under a new rule promulgated by the state interscholastic federation, the girls who finished just behind transgender athlete AB Hernandez in the high jump and triple jump were elevated to share her medals. That seemed just fine to Hernandez and also the other girls on the podium, who all exchanged high-fives and hugs. But it was not okay with protesters who gathered outside the stadium, chanting 'No boys in girls' sports.' Taylor Starling, a cross-country runner went on Fox News with her father to denounce 'guys that are taking away girls' awards, their medals, their spots.' Starling is part of a lawsuit alleging that she was demoted from her varsity track and field team when a transgender athlete took her spot. President Trump, meanwhile, threatened 'large scale fines' against California for allowing a 'Biological male' to compete the 'Girls State Finals.' Hernandez's mother fired back, denouncing people 'in positions of power' for harassing her daughter. Hernandez also spoke up against her critics: 'I'm still a child, you're an adult, and for you to act like a child shows how you are as a person.' But as petty and small as it may be for Hernandez's detractors to malign her as a 'boy' or a 'male,' they have the right to say it — just as I have the right to call them out. That's called America. Alas, that's also a memo that educators in Middleborough, Mass. seem to have missed. Earlier this spring, they sent home a seventh-grader for wearing a T-shirt declaring, 'There Are Only Two Genders' because 'other students had complained about the T-shirt and that it had 'made them upset.'' Then the student came back in a T-shirt that said, 'There are CENSORED Genders.' The school told him that wouldn't be allowed, either. I'm sure the shirts did make some people upset, but I also imagine that some were upset by a student at the same school who wore a T-shirt that read, 'HE SHE THEY IT'S ALL OKAY.' Once we decide to censor upsetting speech, we won't be able to speak at all. That's why the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that 13-year-old Mary Beth Tinker could wear a black armband to her Iowa middle school to protest America's war in Vietnam. Schools cannot suppress speech out of 'a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint,' the court declared in Tinker v. Des Moines. The only justifiable reason for restricting speech was if it threatened 'material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline.' Did the T-shirt saying there are only two genders pose that kind of danger? Of course not. But a federal trial judge ruled that the school could censor the student anyway, because he was threatening 'the rights of others' to attend school 'without being confronted by messages attacking their identities.' So what would prevent a school from prohibiting the 'HE SHE THEY' shirt, on the grounds that it threatened the identities of devout Christians and Muslims? And couldn't a school also bar speech in support of AB Hernandez, whose critics might claim that their own gender identities were under fire? In each case, the answer is yes. Nevertheless, an appeals court upheld the Massachusetts judge's decision. And last week, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case on appeal. In doing so, it turned its back on Tinker v. Des Moines and its ringing affirmation of freedom, which is fundamental to our shared identity as Americans. 'Any word spoken in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance,' the Tinker ruling acknowledged. 'But our Constitution says we must take this risk, and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom — this kind of openness — that is the basis of our national strength.' In California, AB Hernandez demonstrated precisely that strength. But in Massachusetts, school officials closed off speech out of fear. That's a hazard to the freedom of everyone, no matter what they think about gender. And if you think otherwise, watch out. Someday soon, the censors may be coming for you. Jonathan Zimmerman teaches education and history at the University of Pennsylvania and serves on the advisory board of the Albert Lepage Center for History in the Public Interest.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Supreme Court just gave DOGE access to Social Security data. Here's what personal information is at stake
The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Department of Government Efficiency access to Social Security Administration data that includes sensitive personal information of millions of Americans. The decision comes as the federal government sought a stay, or temporary suspension, after a federal judge blocked DOGE's access to that data in April. The nation's highest court granted an emergency application from the Trump administration to lift that injunction; the case is expected to proceed in lower courts. In its decision, the Supreme Court concluded the Social Security Administration may give DOGE access to agency records while the case plays out "in order for those members to do their work." More from Personal Finance:Millions would lose health insurance under GOP megabillAverage 401(k) balances drop 3% due to market volatilityTrump administration asks Supreme Court to lift ban on Education Dept. layoffs Both the White House and the Social Security Administration called the Supreme Court decision a victory. In a statement, White House spokesperson Elizabeth Huston said it will allow the Trump administration to "carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse and modernize government information systems." Likewise, Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano in a statement said the agency "will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries." Yet others expressed grave concern in reaction to the decision, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, advocacy groups and plaintiffs in the case against DOGE and the Social Security Administration. "This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people," said the coalition of plaintiffs including American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the American Federation of Teachers; and the Alliance for Retired Americans, who are represented by Democracy Forward. "This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE's affiliates to steal Americans' private and personal data," they said, while vowing to "use every legal tool at our disposal" to prevent the misuse of public data as the case moves forward. The dispute focuses on how much access DOGE should have to Americans' personal data. The plaintiffs filed an initial complaint in early March, stating the Social Security Administration had "abandoned its commitment to maintaining the privacy" of the sensitive personal information of millions of Americans under DOGE's influence. The Social Security Administration collects and stores some of the "most sensitive" personally identifiable information of millions of Americans, ranging from seniors to adults to children, the complaint notes. When applying for a Social Security number, the agency requires the disclosure of place and date of birth, citizenship, ethnicity, race, sex, phone number and mailing address. It also requires parents' names and Social Security numbers. But the agency is also privy to other personal data, including personal health information, the complaint notes. That includes: The Social Security Administration also collects tax information, including total earnings, Social Security and Medicare wages and annual employee withholdings. DOGE has not only accessed the agency's sensitive and protected information; it has also publicly shared it, according to the complaint. The actions of the defendants, including the Social Security Administration, DOGE and leaders including former head Elon Musk, have deprived Americans of privacy protections guaranteed by federal law and made their personal information vulnerable, the complaint alleges. In her dissent, Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, notes that records show "DOGE received far broader data access" than the Social Security Administration usually allows in fraud, waste and abuse investigations. Typically, those investigations start with high level, anonymized data, with more access to more detailed information only granted as necessary. Justice Elena Kagan also dissented in the 6-3 decision. "The government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information – before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE's access is lawful," Justice Jackson wrote. While litigation is pending, the government has asked to temporarily suspend the lower court's temporary limitations on DOGE's access to Social Security data, she noted. "But the government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent the court's intervention," Justice Jackson wrote.
