On November 8, 2022, voters in California approved Proposition 31, a referendum on the 2020 law that would ban the retail sale of certain flavored tobacco products.
Less than three weeks later, lawyers representing RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, RJ Reynolds Vapor Company, and other Reynolds tobacco subsidiaries filed an emergency lawsuit with the US Supreme Court seeking to prohibit the proposal and enforcement of Senate Bill 793.
Across the state, more than 63% of voters support the proposal, with even 55% of voters in Riverside County voting in favor. However, Reynolds was not deterred and has appealed to the Supreme Court on November 29th.
This week, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected the appeal.
Reynolds' lawyers argued that the Tobacco Control Act (Public Law 111-31, approved in June 2009) prohibits states and local jurisdictions from enacting tobacco product standards that differ from federal standards. Furthermore, the federal government has not yet banned these flavored tobacco products.
Both the district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did not prevent the enforcement of SB 793, which is why Reynolds appealed to the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously been overturned in cases related to the law.
According to documents submitted by Reynolds' lawyers, "this request stems from the Ninth Circuit Court's decision to effectively ignore the explicit priority purchase provisions of the Tobacco Control Act and allow states to completely prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products that do not meet the state's tobacco product standards. If judicial intervention is not immediately taken, the petitioners will suffer irreparable harm, as they will be unable to sell their products in one of the largest markets in the United States.
In response, the California Department of Justice told the court that Reynolds is more concerned with those unable to purchase flavored products, as opposed to the millions of children and teenagers who have become smokers after using these products. The state highlighted that Reynolds' research, which contradicts this point, was prepared by one of its affiliated organizations and not independently.
The state argues that the implementation of SB 793 has been delayed for almost two years by unsuccessful public campaigns, allowing children and teenagers throughout the state to develop the deadly habit of tobacco use through flavored tobacco products during this period. Voters have now spoken by rejecting the tobacco industry's policy arguments and approving the ban on the retail sale of flavored tobacco products. The balance has been decisively tipped, enabling the will of the voters to take effect.
The Supreme Court declined to comment or raise any objections, instead issuing a brief statement rejecting Reynolds' appeal, stating: "The injunction application submitted to Judge Cogan and submitted to the Court by her is denied.
After the Supreme Court ruling, California Attorney General Rob Bonta praised the decision in a press release, stating "At a time when tobacco is America's number one preventable killer, flavored tobacco products are attracting a new generation of young smokers. I commend the Supreme Court for rejecting Big Tobacco's recent attempt to block California's common-sense ban on flavored tobacco products. California voters overwhelmingly passed this ban in November's election and now it will finally go into effect. I look forward to continuing to defend this important law against any further legal challenges.
Disclaimer
This article is provided solely for professional research, industry discussion, and informational purposes. Any references to brands, companies, products, technologies, or policies are made for factual reporting and analytical purposes only, and do not constitute endorsement, recommendation, promotion, or advertising by 2Firsts.
Nicotine-containing products, including but not limited to cigarettes, e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products, and nicotine pouches, carry significant health risks. Readers are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions, including age restrictions and access limitations.
The information contained in this article should not be regarded as investment, legal, medical, regulatory, or commercial advice. While 2Firsts strives to ensure the accuracy and reliability of its content, it does not assume liability for any direct or indirect loss arising from errors, omissions, inaccuracies, or reliance on the information contained herein.
This article is not intended for individuals below the legal age for accessing tobacco or nicotine-related information in their jurisdiction.
Copyright Notice
This article is either original content produced by 2Firsts or content reproduced, translated, summarized, or adapted from third-party sources with attribution where applicable. The intellectual property rights of the original content remain with 2Firsts or the respective original rights holders.
No individual or organization may copy, reproduce, distribute, republish, modify, translate, or otherwise use this content without prior authorization. Any unauthorized use may result in legal action.
For copyright-related inquiries, corrections, or removal requests, please contact: info@2firsts.com.
AI-Assisted Translation and Editing Notice
Portions of this article may have been translated, edited, or reviewed with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools to improve efficiency and readability. Due to the limitations of AI-assisted translation and editing, discrepancies, omissions, or inaccuracies may exist when compared with the original source.
Where applicable, readers are advised to refer to the original source for the most complete and accurate information. If you identify any errors or believe that any content infringes upon your rights, please contact us at info@2firsts.com, and we will review and address the matter promptly.
