Schwartz v. Washington County

The Oregon Court of Appeals upheld Washington County Ordinance (WCO) 878 ending the sale and distribution of flavored tobacco products and flavored synthetic nicotine products, finding that it is not preempted by state law. This decision overturns a lower court ruling that blocked the law. Since Oregon does not require tobacco retailers to sell any particular type of tobacco product or "inhalant delivery system," Oregon’s tobacco retail licensing scheme can operate concurrently with Washington County's ordinance. 

Schwartz v. Washington County, 22CV04836, Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon (2024).

  • United States
  • May 1, 2024
  • Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff

  • Jordan Schwartz
  • Jonathan Moran
  • Serenity Vapors, LLC
  • Torched Illusions, LLC
  • Belal Yahya
  • Hookah Cafe, LLC, dba King's Hookah Lounge

Defendant Washington County

Legislation Cited

Washington County Ordinance (WCO) 878

Tobacco retail licensure (TRL), ORS 431A.190 to 431A.220

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

"We have explained that “[a] local ordinance is not incompatible with state law simply because it imposes greater requirements than does the state.” Thunderbird Mobile Club v. City of Wilsonville, 234 Or App 457, 474, 228 P3d 650, rev den, 348 Or 524 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, “a local law is preempted only to the extent that it ‘cannot operate concurrently’ with state law, i.e., the operation of local law makes it impossible to comply with a state statute.” Id.; see also Rogue Valley Sewer Services, 357 Or at 455 (citing Thunderbird Mobile Club, 234 Or App at 474, for that proposition)."