The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Justice Kavanaugh Asks FDA to Respond to Breeze Smoke Emergency Stay Application
Vaping regulation gets some attention on the Shadow Docket
Yesterday, Justice Brett Kavanaugh requested that the federal government file a response to Breeze Smoke LLC's application for an emergency stay to block the Food and Drug Administration's order denying approval of the manufacturer's flavored vaping products. I noted Breeze Smoke's application in this post last week. The government's response is due December 6. The case docket is here.
Breeze Smoke is seeking an emergency stay from the Supreme Court after a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit refused its stay application. As I explained here, the Sixth Circuit panel expressly disagreed with a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which granted another company's stay application due to the FDA's arbitrary and inconsistent approach to reviewing product applications for flavored vaping products (often called electronic nicotine delivery systems or "ENDS"). Another manufacturer obtained a stay from the Seventh Circuit, while a fourth was denied a stay by the Ninth Circuit. To compound the inconsistency, the FDA has rescinded its rejection of product applications from still other ENDS manufacturers who raised similar substantive objections.
There is little question that this case presents the sort of administrative law question the justices would usually prefer to consider in the regular order, after multiple courts of appeals have fully considered the underlying merits and, only then, after full argument and briefing. The problem here, however, is that for many ENDS manufacturers, FDA denial of their applications amounts to a death sentence, as without such approval they cannot continue to sell their products. Further, as noted above, the circuit courts are already split on the egregiousness of the FDA's behavior. (While the Sixth Circuit denied the stay, it acknowledged that some of Breeze Smoke's complaints rang true.) So it will be interesting to see whether the justices believe this case raises sufficient concerns to justify intervention.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Well, per Justice Barrett, the Court should consider the cert-worthiness of the issue when deciding shadow docket applications. And that factor weighs in favor of the vaping companies here.
Great chance to reevaluate chevron.
FDA: We can interpret regulation as we see fit.
Also FDA: It's fine if we have simultaneously conflicting interpretations.
I’m drinking coffee right now—is nicotine more dangerous than caffeine? The reason I don’t consume nicotine is because it’s addictive and so the only way I consume it is in cigar form every several years. So even if vaping nicotine is innocuous I still don’t want to get addicted to nicotine.
Well that's what personal choice is all about,
I don't think there is much doubt congress can ban vaping if they wanted. But I'm not sure the FDA can. If they allow cigarettes which I don't they can, and the evidence is very clear that vaping is much safer than cigarettes, which it is, then I think it's clearly arbitrary and capricious to ban vaping.
It would be typical bureaucratic behavior to ban vaping without banning cigarettes.
Does smokable tobacco pay more taxes than vapeable nicotine?
The sin tax on tobacco is a huge cash cow of random gov't projects.
I came across something funny reading about “snake oil” which actually had real drugs in it. So in America opium had a bad reputation because Chinese immigrants smoked it (and Chinese workers were also viewed as lazy) and marijuana had a bad reputation because Mexicans smoked it and non WASP whites would get drunk and beat their wives and children and cocaine had a negative reputation because Blacks snorted it…and according to Wikipedia southern sheriffs started replacing .32 caliber guns with .38 caliber guns so they could stop coked up Black males because.32 caliber bullets wouldn’t work. So that is why we banned alcohol and started outlawing and heavily regulating opioids with the FDA and DEA and FBI.
Btw, I first came across the lazy Chinese worker stereotype a few months ago reading about the Polo Grounds with 270 foot foul poles in which home runs hit over that fence were called Chinese home runs because they worked just hard enough to get meager pay.
"I don't think there is much doubt congress can ban vaping if they wanted."
In the sense of, "Would likely get away with doing it", sure. In the sense of actually having constitutional authority to do it? Plenty of doubt.
Nicotine is extremely addictive but it's not all that bad for you. While it's not good for you and withdrawal obviously sucks I don't think normal use is more dangerous than caffeine. Caffeine can actually exacerbate anxiety issues, which are fairly common now, but nicotine mostly just messes with sleep and causes some minor tissue irritation. I think most studies of nicotine's adverse effects is done with subjects that are quitting smoking so it's not really clear on the general adverse effects.
I think it’s funny when I hear people ate too much THC gummies—when I got back into drinking coffee I had the goal of drinking black coffee in 6 months because I practice intermittent fasting and don’t want calories. So I started with espresso shots and eventually acquired the taste to drink instant black coffee. And on the first day of drinking instant black coffee I realized I liked the taste and it probably cost 5 cents a cup and so I just kept drinking it—and then I just got totally wired and got sick and my day was ruined! So I know my limits now and only drink two cups in the morning and occasionally another half cup.
I'm not sure nicotine would even be more addictive, if you normalized the dose, and administered it the same way people consume caffeine. Administration through the lungs has such an immediate effect, it's very prone to inducing strong operant conditioning. Administration via food is slow enough the conditioning aspect is much weaker.
Has the Volokh Conspiracy become a backdoor by which notes are passed -- perhaps by litigants, directly or indirectly -- to conservative judges and justices without (ostensibly) triggering ethical restrictions or respecting court procedures?
You mean freedom of speech?
I mean communications governed by ethical rules and court procedures.
Get an education.
I understand. You think government should make it illegal to comment publically on things before the Supreme Court.
Got it.
That is not what I wrote, you bigoted, obsolete, right-wing clinger.
Some rules regarding ex parte communications might address some otherwise proper public commentary -- writing in chalk on a sidewalk (if that sidewalk leads to a judge's driveway), for example, or conducting a loud conversation each day (standing behind a judge in line at a coffee shop the judge is known to visit daily), or purchasing a billboard display (known to be visible from a judge's desk).
Get an education. Or ask someone with a proper education to try to explain this to you. If you need to travel through two or three towns to find such a person where you reside, invest the miles.
I should have mentioned this issue in the context of another Conspirator's contribution. Prof. Adler doesn't deserve association with Krayt's commentary. Another Conspirator or two, however, might.
My hovercraft is full of eels. Got it? Repeat: my hovercraft is full of eels. Over.
I don't understand speaking in tongues.
In more ways than one.
If I have that much influence, I'll have to start charging.
You've never charged vaping industry participants?
(That probably seemed more harsh than intended or perhaps warranted, and it is unfortunate happenstance that you were the Conspirator who triggered this observation, which has been developing for some time. Also, some people "work" for free.)
I was compensated by an e-cig maker for co-authoring a white paper related to e-cig regulation several years ago (and it was disclosed at the time). Since then, they call to ask me to write amicus briefs, but not for things that they could or would pay me for. Oh well.
The problem here, however, is that for many ENDS manufacturers, FDA denial of their applications amounts to a death sentence, as without such approval they cannot continue to sell their products.
So the companies took a business risk. Now, because of that, they want special expedited help from a court? Other than bias in favor of the companies, why should the courts accommodate them, by taking up a case which hasn't even been briefed?
If I understand it, it seems the business reasonably relied on the FDA following procedures and actually reviewing their approval application but the FDA failed to do so. All they are asking the court to do is to make the FDA do what they are supposed to do.
Sure, the business took the risk that the government would fail to follow their own regulations -- and the risk is that the business will incur legal expenses to force government compliance in a timely fashion (which appears to be exactly what they are doing).
That's the sort of "accommodation" I would expect from the Judicial branch - it's their job!
"why should the courts accommodate them"
Some companies won, others lost, on the same issue. It depended on which circuit heard the case.
Why should a losing company just have to go out of business because of where they were located? A circuit split like that often, not always, means the supreme court will hear the case.
The stay just treats all the companies the same, for now. It might not even be granted.
Why should the court accommodate the FDA?
It shouldn't. It should follow its usual practices. The unreasonable demand is that the courts should depart from usual practices. Nothing about the future of the nicotine industry is urgent enough to warrant that. Take the normal approach, develop a record to get a better basis for a decision, and then take on the case.
"usual practices"
The rules permit a request for a stay. It is a "usual practice".
You just, as usual, do not understand law and legal procedure.
Oh good.
In fact, why don't we just eliminate the normal procedure of the Supreme Court hearing appeals from the Circuit Courts with full blown argument, briefs etc and just go to the Shaddow Docket process where the Court decides things without benefit of Due Process.
That will make it so much easier for the Cowardice Caucus on the Court to rewrite laws without that nasty, troublesome hearing process. And the good part, no one can blame them for a bad decision beause they would not have made a decision.
Professor...I worry more about the failure to address the FDA's behavior than the demise of a bunch of ENDS companies. It has far more important implications (the failure to address egregiously bad behavior by FDA).
For that alone, SCoTUS should address this; and grant a stay.
Breeze Smoke stay denied: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121021zr1_3e04.pdf