Limitations regarding the use of quotes
The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the FDA followed the law in denying marketing applications for certain flavored e-cigarette products. In September 2020, Triton Distribution and Vapetasia filed applications with FDA to sell nicotine e-liquids with kid-friendly flavors like “Jimmy the Juice Man Peachy Strawberry,” “Suicide Bunny Mother’s Milk and Cookies,” “Iced Lemonade” and “Killer Kustard Blueberry.” Their applications included existing studies on e-cigarettes and marketing plans to restrict youth access. In August 2021, FDA announced a new trial and study requirement specific to flavored products. Shortly thereafter, FDA denied the manufacturers applications, citing a lack of evidence. The manufacturers challenged this decision in a federal appeals court, which held the FDA had improperly changed its requirements without notice and refused to consider the submitted marketing plans.
The Supreme Court explained that under federal law, courts reviewing an agency’s actions can only set them aside if they are arbitrary and capricious, meaning they lack a rational basis or are unreasonable. The case was sent back to the federal appeals court to revisit whether it made a difference that FDA changed its position and failed to consider marketing plans submitted as part of their applications.
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and other public health groups filed an amicus brief urging the court to deny the marketing applications (see "Related Documents").