FDA Vape shops sue to block U.S. regulation covering e-cigarettes

[FlamingoTutu]

Just dropping this in here since I didn't see it mentioned elsewhere, which doesn't mean it isn't... Merge or delete as necessary.

The shops located in California, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Texas argue that the so-called “Deeming Rule” that deems e-cigarettes to be tobacco products was not legally adopted because it was issued by a career FDA employee, rather than an officer appointed by the president.

The lawsuits also contend that the rule violates the U.S. Constitution’s free speech protections by requiring vape retailers to obtain the FDA’s approval before advertising information about their products’ health and related effects.

Vape shops sue to block U.S. regulation covering e-cigarettes

 

[Letitia]

Just dropping this in here since I didn't see it mentioned elsewhere, which doesn't mean it isn't... Merge or delete as necessary.

The shops located in California, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Texas argue that the so-called “Deeming Rule” that deems e-cigarettes to be tobacco products was not legally adopted because it was issued by a career FDA employee, rather than an officer appointed by the president.

The lawsuits also contend that the rule violates the U.S. Constitution’s free speech protections by requiring vape retailers to obtain the FDA’s approval before advertising information about their products’ health and related effects.

Vape shops sue to block U.S. regulation covering e-cigarettes

I have read that, but don't remember where. They cannot stand on the free speech due to tobacco classification. They have to change the classification, if that happens the free speech suit would be null.

 

[zoiDman]

...

The shops located in California, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Texas argue that the so-called “Deeming Rule” that deems e-cigarettes to be tobacco products was not legally adopted because it was issued by a career FDA employee, rather than an officer appointed by the president.

...

That is an Interesting Twist to say the least.

 

[Bill Godshall]

If anyone finds a copy of the lawsuits that were filed (in three different federal court circuits), please post ASAP.

"The vape shops, represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation conservative legal group, in lawsuits filed in federal courts in Texas, Minnesota and Washington, D.C., argued the 2016 rule was unconstitutional."

Pacific Legal Foundation is legit, but I don't know about the merits of these lawsuits.

 

[zoiDman]

If anyone finds a copy of the lawsuits that were filed (in three different federal court circuits), please post ASAP.

"The vape shops, represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation conservative legal group, in lawsuits filed in federal courts in Texas, Minnesota and Washington, D.C., argued the 2016 rule was unconstitutional."

Pacific Legal Foundation is legit, but I don't know about the merits of these lawsuits.

I believe this is it...

Complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas

 

[Opinionated]

If anyone finds a copy of the lawsuits that were filed (in three different federal court circuits), please post ASAP.

"The vape shops, represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation conservative legal group, in lawsuits filed in federal courts in Texas, Minnesota and Washington, D.C., argued the 2016 rule was unconstitutional."

Pacific Legal Foundation is legit, but I don't know about the merits of these lawsuits.

Texas filing: (PDF)
Complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas

District of Columbia filing: (PDF)
Complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Minnesota filing: (PDF)
Complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

 

[zoiDman]

If anyone finds a copy of the lawsuits that were filed (in three different federal court circuits), please post ASAP.

...

Looks like the 3 Lawsuit are Separate items (???). I guess that needs to be done because of the Location of the Relief seekers. And then the 3 would be Enjoined.

They can be found Here in the R/H side of this page.

Arbitrary federal vaping regulations threaten businesses, consumers—and constitutional rights

ETA - Never mind. Opinionated beat me to it.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

@Letitia, think I've heard something like that in the past.

@zoiDman, I hope it gets far enough along to be an interesting twist.

@Opinionated, nice find!

 

[retired1]

Don't see their complaint of who signed off on the deeming regulations holding any water. During the time it was signed off on, there was no FDA Chairman. Perfectly acceptable for the "Acting" Chairman to fill the role as needed.

 

[Bill Godshall]

The reason that lawsuits were filed in three different federal court districts is because different judges and appeals courts in each district could issue vastly different verdicts, and because different verdicts in different districts could send the cases to the US Supreme Court for adjudication.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

Don't see their complaint of who signed off on the deeming regulations holding any water. During the time it was signed off on, there was no FDA Chairman. Perfectly acceptable for the "Acting" Chairman to fill the role as needed.

Not encouraging.

The reason that lawsuits were filed in three different federal court districts is because different judges and appeals courts in each district could issue vastly different verdicts, and because different verdicts in different districts could send the cases to the US Supreme Court for adjudication.

Do you think that would be a good thing in the long run?

 

[Bill Godshall]

The lawyers at Pacific Legal Foundation filed the litigation against FDA because they believe it is winnable.

If Retired1 is an attorney, please provide some rationale for your negative comment.

 

[Ralph_K]

Any FDA regulation that violates 1st amendment is an actual crime. They can be prosecuted for "Conspiracy Against Rights" a felony. Only a constitutional amendment can override a constitutional amendment and an act of congress cannot and even if it could congress has absolutely no power to make any law in regards to freedom of speech.

 

[zoiDman]

Isn't there a Line Drawn between what is considered "Noncommercial Speech" and "Commercial Speech" ?

And "Commercial Speech" isn't afforded the same protections under the 1st Amendment as what would be afforded to an Individual.

Right?

 

[Ralph_K]

Isn't there a Line Drawn between what is considered "Noncommercial Speech" and "Commercial Speech" ?

And "Commercial Speech" isn't afforded the same protections under the 1st Amendment as what would be afforded to an Individual.

Right?

Nope. Under Bush he gave corporation rights same as people. I think it's crap because corporations have more rights than actual people now

 

[WorksForMe]

Isn't there a Line Drawn between what is considered "Noncommercial Speech" and "Commercial Speech" ?

And "Commercial Speech" isn't afforded the same protections under the 1st Amendment as what would be afforded to an Individual.

Right?

That sounds right to me. For years, the FDA has been telling big companies what they can and can't say in advertisements and on packaging. If that was against the law, you would think somebody would have called them on it by now.

As for their other argument, that could be a technicality that nullifies this whole thing, but I doubt it.

 

[zoiDman]

Nope. Under Bush he gave corporation rights same as people. I think it's crap because corporations have more rights than actual people now

Didn't realize that a POTUS had the Authority to do that?

Seems like something that a Supreme Court would decide.

 

[WorksForMe]

Commercial speech - Wikipedia

"In the 1980 case Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court developed a four-part test to determine whether commercial speech regulation violates the First Amendment:

1. Whether the commercial speech concerns a lawful activity and is not misleading
2. Whether the government interest asserted to justify the regulation is "substantial"
3. Whether the regulation "directly advances" that government interest
4. Whether the regulation is no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest "

I would think that the FDA could successfully argue that the Deeming rule passes this Central Hudson test.

 

[Ralph_K]

Didn't realize that a POTUS had the Authority to do that?

Seems like something that a Supreme Court would decide.

Supreme Court only determines if a law is constitutional. Now days presidents do what ever they want. Presidents aren't suppose to be making laws they aren't even in legislative branch of government. make no if, and, or but about it the corporations as people thing was just to legalize bribes by stating corporate money is free speech

 

[zoiDman]

Supreme Court only determines if a law is constitutional. Now days presidents do what ever they want. Presidents aren't suppose to be making laws they aren't even in legislative branch of government. make no if, and, or but about it the corporations as people thing was just to legalize bribes by stating corporate money is free speech

So what Exactly did Bush do?

And how does it Apply to this e-Cigarette Lawsuit?