Today is
Thursday April 03, 2025
(WASHINGTON) -- A unanimous Supreme Court on Wednesday backed the Food and Drug Administration's refusal to authorize the sale of kid-friendly flavored e-cigarettes and vapes, including the flavors "Killer Kustard Blueberry," "Rainbow Road," and "Pineapple Express."
Justice Samuel Alito, in his opinion for the court, rejected the manufacturers' claims that the agency had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of federal law by changing the requirements for product approval in the middle of the process.
"In the end, we cannot say that the FDA improperly changed its position with respect to scientific evidence, comparative efficacy, or device type," Alito wrote. He returned the case to a lower court for further review.
The ruling effectively holds the line on the government's decision to severely limit the number of flavored tobacco products legally available in the U.S. market out of concerns over the impact on children.
Kid-friendly flavors, such as fruit, candy, mint, menthol and desserts -- which are largely not approved by the FDA and are currently sold on store shelves illegally -- have been fueling an explosion in retail sales of e-cigarettes.
While vaping among youth is declining, more than 1.6 million children use the products, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nearly 90% of them consume illicit flavored brands.
"Today's ruling is a major victory for the health of America's kids and efforts to protect them from the flavored e-cigarettes that have fueled a youth nicotine addiction crisis," said Yolanda Richardson, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, an advocacy group. She noted the FDA has denied over 26 million flavored e-cigarette product applications so far.
"While the FDA has authorized the sale of only 34 e-cigarette products, manufacturers continue to flood the market with thousands of illegal, unauthorized products," Richardson said in a statement. "To end this crisis, the FDA must deny marketing applications for flavored e-cigarettes and step up enforcement efforts to clear the market of illegal products. Today's ruling should spur the FDA to act quickly to do so."
The companies -- White Lion Investments LLC and Vapetasia LLC -- did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment on the Supreme Court's ruling.
Since 2009, federal law requires sellers of new nicotine products to provide regulators with scientific evidence to show that the products would promote public health, but the statute does not spell out specifically what evidence is necessary and sufficient. The FDA's guidance on how to meet that requirement was at the center of the case.
While the first Trump administration had taken a hard line against the marketing and sale sweet and candy flavored vapes, President Donald Trump said during the campaign that he wants to "save" flavored vapes. It's not clear how the FDA, newly under his control, may modify regulations around flavored vapes or alter the approval process.
Despite their loss in the case, vape manufacturers are able to reapply for approval with the FDA in a new application and attempt to show how benefits of the product to public health would outweigh the dangers to teens.
"In light of the statutory text and the well-documented and serious risks flavored e-cigarette products pose to youth, it should have come as no surprise that applicants would need to submit rigorous scientific evidence showing that the benefits of their products would outweigh those risks," Justice Sonia Sotomayor concluded in a short concurring opinion in the case.
Copyright Ā© 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) -- The battle over taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood takes center stage at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday in a dispute over South Carolina's exclusion of the group from the state Medicaid program because it provides abortions.
On the line is the ability of Medicaid beneficiaries to freely choose a healthcare provider, including physicians at Planned Parenthood who provide services other than abortion, like contraception treatments and cancer screenings.
South Carolina's two Planned Parenthood clinics have served mostly low-income, minority women for more than 40 years. Hundreds of their patients are Medicaid recipients.
The case also implicates the millions of federal dollars Planned Parenthood receives in the form of reimbursements for treating Medicaid patients each year.
According to Planned Parenthood, 34% of its overall revenue, or $699 million, comes from government grants, contracts, and Medicaid funds.
In 2018, South Carolina's Republican governor Henry McMaster issued executive orders disqualifying Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid reimbursements for non-abortion services.
Julie Edwards, a Medicaid beneficiary and type-1 diabetic who sought medical care at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Columbia, SC, sued the state alleging a violation of the Medicaid Act, which guarantees a "free choice of provider" that is willing and qualified.
"Medicaid beneficiaries often face significant barriers to obtaining care, particularly in South Carolina. Twenty-five percent of state residents live in medically underserved areas," the plaintiffs wrote in their brief to the high court.
"[Congress] enacted the free-choice-of-provider provision to ensure that Medicaid patients, like everyone else, can choose their own doctor," they wrote. "Congress specifically enacted this provision in response to some States' efforts to restrict Medicaid patients' choice of provider."
The state argues that Congress never intended to give individuals the right to sue over access to a particular provider and that there are plenty of other clinics available to serve Medicaid recipients.
"Congress wanted states to have substantial discretion to innovate with their Medicaid programs," the state wrote in its brief to the high court. Allowing individuals to sue over access to specific providers would "subject the state to unanticipated (and expensive) lawsuits."
While federal law already prohibits any government funding of abortions, South Carolina contends it has the right to target non-abortion funding to abortion providers. "Because money is fungible, giving Medicaid dollars to abortion facilities frees up their other funds to provide more abortions," the state told the court.
"[Planned Parenthood] can restore Medicaid funding if it stops performing abortionsā but it has chosen not to do so," South Carolina wrote.
If the justices allow the suit to go forward, Edwards and Planned Parenthood can continue to challenge the clinics' exclusion from the state's Medicaid program in a lower court.
If the justices side with the state, they would bolster efforts to cut off Planned Parenthood from sources of government funding and effectively limit the number of providers available to Medicaid recipients.
A decision in the case is expected by the end of the Court's term in June.
Copyright Ā© 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.