US Judge Rules Against FDA on Premium Cigar Regulation

Jul.07.2022
US Judge Rules Against FDA on Premium Cigar Regulation
A US judge ruled FDA's decision on regulating premium cigars as arbitrary and capricious, asks for briefing on decision reversal.

On Tuesday, a federal judge in the U.S. ruled that the FDA's decision to regulate premium cigars under the same federal laws as cigarettes and other tobacco products was arbitrary and capricious.


District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington D.C. has stated that the FDA disregarded relevant data on the health risks associated with high-quality cigars. He has requested the FDA and industry groups that question this regulation, including the Premium Cigar Association and the Cigar Rights of America, to submit briefs explaining why he should overturn the FDA's decision.


Michael Edney, the attorney for the plaintiff firm Steptoe & Johnson, stated that the family-owned manufacturer and retailer of high-quality cigars has long believed that the FDA has mishandled its regulation of premium cigars. He expressed gratitude for the court's ruling and the opportunity to pursue further legal action on this matter.


At this time, it is not possible to immediately reach out to the FDA for comment on this matter.


The focus of the lawsuit is the so-called certification rules passed by the agency in 2016, in which it exercised regulatory authority over a wide range of tobacco products, including premium cigars and cigarettes, under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.


The plaintiff stated that the organization considered and rejected high-quality cigars before finalizing its regulations, as well as during additional consultations in 2017 and 2018.


According to them, the FDA's regulations require cigar manufacturers to register their products annually and provide a list of ingredients for each product. They also require all products to undergo laboratory testing, which is impractical for "craftsmen" who produce high-quality handmade cigars.


Industry organizations state that unlike cigarettes and e-cigarettes, high-quality cigars are not appealing to young people and are not associated with addiction. They cite research indicating that young people are unlikely to use high-quality cigars, and those who do use them are unlikely to smoke cigars on a regular basis, thus not contributing to increased death rates.


On Monday, Mehta agreed that the FDA did not adequately consider the studies cited by the plaintiffs and instead claimed "there is no evidence to suggest" that high-quality cigars pose less of a health risk.


The judge wrote that when an institution unequivocally claims there is no evidence, while in fact there are relevant documented pieces of evidence, and the institution ignores or disregards it, it acts arbitrarily and capriciously.


The case is the lawsuit filed by the U.S. Cigar Association against the FDA in the District Court of Columbia, case number 16-cv-01460.


This article is a compilation of information from third-party sources and is intended solely for educational and informational purposes. All copyrights to the compiled information belong to the original media and authors, and any infringements should be reported for prompt removal.



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.

UK HMRC Unveils Red and Yellow Transitional Vape Duty Stamps Ahead of October Tax Launch
UK HMRC Unveils Red and Yellow Transitional Vape Duty Stamps Ahead of October Tax Launch
HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has released sample images of the UK’s transitional vaping duty stamps, showing red and yellow versions ahead of the new Vaping Products Duty and Vaping Duty Stamps Scheme starting on October 1, 2026. Transitional stamps contain physical security features but no digital scanning function. Approved businesses may purchase them through November 30 and affix them through December 31. HMRC has not stated that the red and yellow samples represent different product categories or tax statuses.
Regulations
Sep.02
South Korea Imports 12,126 Kg of Nicotine Analogues From April to August After Bringing Synthetic Nicotine Under Tobacco Law
South Korea Imports 12,126 Kg of Nicotine Analogues From April to August After Bringing Synthetic Nicotine Under Tobacco Law
South Korea's liquid-vape market is showing changes across raw-material imports, product types and sales channels after synthetic nicotine came under the Tobacco Business Act on April 24. Customs data show nicotine-analogue imports totaled 12,126 kilograms from April through August, while synthetic-nicotine imports over the same five months totaled 231,663 kilograms, just 39.3% of the amount imported in March alone. Physical liquid-vape stores tracked in Seoul and Gyeonggi Province fell 9.9%, unmanned outlets edged higher and online sales listings increased from 27,774 to 42,437. Government testing of 105 liquid inhalation products promoted as nicotine-free separately found nicotine in 13 and 6-methylnicotine in 12.
Sep.22
JUUL2 Sued Within a Week of FDA Authorization as AJ Marketing Alleges Infringement of Programmable Vape Patent
JUUL2 Sued Within a Week of FDA Authorization as AJ Marketing Alleges Infringement of Programmable Vape Patent
Less than a week after JUUL2 received U.S. FDA marketing authorization on August 28, 2026, JUUL Labs was sued for patent infringement in federal court in Delaware. AJ Marketing LLC filed the complaint on September 3, alleging that both JUUL 1 and JUUL2 infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,851,068 B2. The patent covers aspects of programmable electronic vaporization devices, including controls over dose delivery, usage frequency and operating parameters. The plaintiff is seeking reasonable royalties and ongoing royalties tied to the remaining life of the patent. JUUL has not yet publicly responded to the case.
Sep.10
U.S. Expands Illicit Vape Enforcement as ATF Brings PACT Act Powers Into Trade Fraud Task Force
U.S. Expands Illicit Vape Enforcement as ATF Brings PACT Act Powers Into Trade Fraud Task Force
The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said on September 23 that it has joined the interagency Trade Fraud Task Force to strengthen enforcement against illegal, misdeclared and smuggled vape and tobacco products. ATF will bring its authority under the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act into the task force, including registration, reporting, shipping and record-inspection requirements covering interstate sales of electronic nicotine delivery systems. ATF said the move will strengthen its ability to trace illicit products from U.S. points of entry through domestic trafficking and distribution networks.
News
Sep.28 by 2Firsts Perspectives
Product | JTI Philippines Expands Nordic Spirit Nicotine Pouch Portfolio With Dark Pop and Red Frost
Product | JTI Philippines Expands Nordic Spirit Nicotine Pouch Portfolio With Dark Pop and Red Frost
JTI Philippines has expanded the Nordic Spirit nicotine pouch portfolio in the Philippines with two new variants, Dark Pop and Red Frost. Both products maintain the brand’s tobacco-free nicotine pouch positioning, with Dark Pop featuring a fizzy cola profile with citrus and sweet notes, while Red Frost combines cool mint with sweet red berry flavors. The two variants are now available through Philippine online retail channels.
Aug.18
Australia’s Victoria Steps Up Illegal Tobacco Enforcement With Store Closures and Penalties of Up to A$2.5 Million
Australia’s Victoria Steps Up Illegal Tobacco Enforcement With Store Closures and Penalties of Up to A$2.5 Million
Australia’s state of Victoria has activated new powers allowing Tobacco Licensing Victoria and police to shut premises suspected of selling, supplying or possessing illicit tobacco for up to 90 days. Longer closures can be ordered by a magistrates’ court. Businesses subject to closure orders must generally cease all trading and will be placed on a public list. Breaching a closure order can carry penalties of up to A$2.5 million and 20 years in prison.
Sep.10