Ohio City Lawsuit Challenges State Tobacco Sales Restrictions as Unconstitutional

Regulations by 2FIRSTS.ai
Apr.11.2024
Ohio City Lawsuit Challenges State Tobacco Sales Restrictions as Unconstitutional
Ohio cities, including Columbus and Cincinnati, are suing the state over tobacco sales restrictions violating local autonomy.

According to a report by halfwheel on April 10th, earlier this year, the Ohio State Legislature passed a bill that will restrict the sale of tobacco products, including flavored tobacco, within city limits, and prohibit municipalities from implementing tobacco regulations stricter than those set by the state.

 

Subsequently, 14 cities, including Columbus, Bexley, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dublin, Gahanna, Grandview Heights, Heath, Hilliard, Oxford, Reynoldsburg, Upper Arlington, and Worthington, filed lawsuits against the new law. They filed the lawsuits in Franklin County on Tuesday, April 9, alleging that the law violates the local government's autonomy. In particular, they argued that the constitution explicitly states that cities have the power to "exercise all local self-government powers and to enact and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations, not in conflict with general laws." They contend that this ban would have a negative impact on citizens.

 

The incident began in December 2022 when the Columbus City Council proposed a ban on the sale of flavored tobacco products. The flavor tobacco ban went into effect on January 1, prohibiting the sale of fruit-flavored, candy-flavored, vanilla-flavored, mint-flavored, or menthol-flavored e-cigarettes, cigarettes, small cigars, chewing tobacco, and any other flavored tobacco products. The Ohio state legislature, controlled by Republicans, quickly passed a priority law prohibiting municipalities from implementing tobacco regulations stricter than state law, which was then vetoed by Governor Mike DeWine. The ban was subsequently passed again by the state legislature, this time as part of a budget proposal, and once again vetoed by DeWine. In January of this year, the state Senate overturned Governor Mike DeWine's veto.

 

With the veto in place, the new state law will go into effect on April 24, meaning cities like Columbus will no longer be able to enforce their ban on flavored tobacco sales after that date.

 

Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein stated in a press release, "Depriving cities of the right to make decisions in the interest of residents is not only unconstitutional, but also harmful policy that undermines public health, disrupts our progress in reducing tobacco use, and keeps these products out of the hands of youth."

 

At the same time, these cities argue that the law also threatens tobacco sales age restrictions that differ from those set by the state. In recent years, cities such as Columbus, Reynoldsburg, and others in central Ohio have passed ordinances to restrict tobacco sales to those aged 21 and older. According to data from the Ohio Department of Health, the smoking rate among adults in Franklin County decreased by 14% from 2016 to 2020, while tobacco use, especially e-cigarette use, has surged among teenagers statewide.

 

These cities have requested the state court to issue a temporary restraining order on the legislation to prevent the statewide ban from taking effect on April 23rd.

 

We welcome news tips, article submissions, interview requests, or comments on this piece.

Please contact us at info@2firsts.com, or reach out to Alan Zhao, CEO of 2Firsts, on LinkedIn


Notice

1.  This article is intended solely for professional research purposes related to industry, technology, and policy. Any references to brands or products are made purely for objective description and do not constitute any form of endorsement, recommendation, or promotion by 2Firsts.

2.  The use of nicotine-containing products — including, but not limited to, cigarettes, e-cigarettes, nicotine pouchand heated tobacco products — carries significant health risks. Users are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions.

3.  This article is not intended to serve as the basis for any investment decisions or financial advice. 2Firsts assumes no direct or indirect liability for any inaccuracies or errors in the content.

4.  Access to this article is strictly prohibited for individuals below the legal age in their jurisdiction.

 

Copyright

 

This article is either an original work created by 2Firsts or a reproduction from third-party sources with proper attribution. All copyrights and usage rights belong to 2Firsts or the original content provider. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or any other form of unauthorized use by any individual or organization is strictly prohibited. Violators will be held legally accountable.

For copyright-related inquiries, please contact: info@2firsts.com

 

AI Assistance Disclaimer

 

This article may have been enhanced using AI tools to improve translation and editorial efficiency. However, due to technical limitations, inaccuracies may occur. Readers are encouraged to refer to the cited sources for the most accurate information.

We welcome any corrections or feedback. Please contact us at: info@2firsts.com

Australia-China Operation Dismantles Tobacco Smuggling Network: 112 Containers, 60 Arrests and A$92 Million in Illicit Tobacco
Australia-China Operation Dismantles Tobacco Smuggling Network: 112 Containers, 60 Arrests and A$92 Million in Illicit Tobacco
According to The Maritime Executive on August 19, 2026, the Australian Border Force (ABF) and China’s Anti-Smuggling Bureau of General Administration of China Customs worked together to dismantle an international illicit tobacco smuggling network targeting Australia. According to information released by ABF on August 20, sustained information sharing and cooperation led to investigations into 112 shipping containers, with 91 found to contain illicit tobacco. Authorities seized more than 60 million cigarettes and 60 kilograms of loose-leaf tobacco, representing more than A$92 million in unpaid duties. More than 60 people suspected of involvement in the network were arrested in China.
Aug.20
From Nicotine Salts to Cocrystals: China’s Shenzhen Huabao institute explores a more stable form for sustained nicotine release
From Nicotine Salts to Cocrystals: China’s Shenzhen Huabao institute explores a more stable form for sustained nicotine release
China-based Shenzhen Huabao Collaborative Innovation Technology Research Institute Co., Ltd. has filed a patent application for a nicotine-ascorbic acid cocrystal, exploring a new solid-state form of nicotine. The patent proposes applications across e-liquids, heated tobacco sticks, oral tobacco, chewing tobacco and snuff. In nicotine pouch tests disclosed in the filing, cocrystal formulations showed less than a 6% decline in nicotine content after three months of accelerated storage and a release profile combining early-stage release with sustained delivery over 60 minutes. The filing reflects exploration of nicotine forms beyond conventional nicotine base and nicotine salts.
Aug.13
Kantar Study Finds More Than 93% of Vape Products in Ukraine Fail Regulatory Requirements
Kantar Study Finds More Than 93% of Vape Products in Ukraine Fail Regulatory Requirements
According to Interfax-Ukraine, a study conducted by market research firm Kantar Ukraine at the request of major tobacco companies found that more than 93% of vape products in Ukraine did not fully comply with regulatory requirements. The research examined product categories, brand distribution and consumer purchasing channels, showing that pod systems and disposable vapes represent major segments of the market, while offline retail remains the dominant purchasing channel. The findings highlight ongoing compliance challenges in Ukraine’s vape market.
Aug.26
2Firsts Data | China’s Vape-Related Exports Rise 16.5% in July 2026 as U.S.-Bound Shipments Jump 53.5%
2Firsts Data | China’s Vape-Related Exports Rise 16.5% in July 2026 as U.S.-Bound Shipments Jump 53.5%
China’s vape-related exports reached $1.047 billion in July 2026, up 16.5% year on year and the highest monthly total of the year. Growth was heavily concentrated in the U.S., where exports jumped 53.5% to $404 million and accounted for 94.9% of the overall increase. Exports to all other markets rose just 1.2%. By category, nicotine-containing non-combustible products—primarily vapes—under HS24041200 rose 24.7% and generated 95.5% of the total increase. Vape-device exports under HS85434000 fell 0.4%, while other nicotine-substitute products under HS24041990 grew 88.9% but remained comparatively small.
DATA
Aug.24
PMI CEO Attends Opening of IQOS Global Flagship in Tokyo’s Ginza as 1,814 Limited ILUMA i PRIME Sets Launch
PMI CEO Attends Opening of IQOS Global Flagship in Tokyo’s Ginza as 1,814 Limited ILUMA i PRIME Sets Launch
IQOS opened its first global flagship, IQOS Flagship Ginza, in Tokyo on September 4, 2026, replacing the former IQOS Store Ginza after nearly a decade of operation. The new location expands conventional product retail into member lounges, digital experiences, art installations and brand programming. IQOS also launched a Ginza-exclusive IQOS ILUMA i PRIME set limited to 1,814 individually numbered units, priced at JPY11,980, or about US$77. PMI Sales Strategy Consultant Yuji M. later said on LinkedIn that more than 500 people had lined up from the night before the opening.
Sep.07
JUUL Purchasers Ask Ninth Circuit to Preserve Antitrust Classes in Case Over Altria’s $12.8 Billion Investment
JUUL Purchasers Ask Ninth Circuit to Preserve Antitrust Classes in Case Over Altria’s $12.8 Billion Investment
Private antitrust litigation stemming from Altria's 2018 $12.8 billion investment for a 35% economic interest in JUUL is advancing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Direct purchasers, indirect purchasers and indirect resellers of JUUL products filed answering briefs this week seeking to preserve class certifications granted by a California federal court in February. Altria and JUUL argue that individual consumers and large distributors differ too much in purchasing terms to remain in a single direct-purchaser class, while a separate dispute concerns whether California antitrust law can apply to indirect purchasers across 27 jurisdictions. A September trial has been put on hold during the appeal.
Sep.23