The Supreme Court is hearing 15 new cases, including another lawsuit against the vape industry

The justices have already agreed to consider the Food and Drug Administration’s case defending its rejection of two companies seeking to sell flavored vaping products. The new case is more technical and surrounds a challenge by the Biden administration to a controversial legal maneuver that it says has given the tobacco and vape industries a tool to fight regulations in more sympathetic federal courtrooms.

The case focuses on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, one of the most conservative in the country, which has become a more attractive venue for vaping and tobacco industry giants seeking to challenge regulations under the Biden administration.

Under federal law, companies can challenge FDA policies in Washington, DC, in federal court, or where the company’s place of business is located. But under a rule in the 5th Circuit, plaintiffs are allowed to bring challenges to that location as long as a product made by the main company is sold by a store within the 5th Circuit’s jurisdiction, which covers Texas , Mississippi and Louisiana.

“This Court should grant review to end this practice,” U.S. Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in the lawsuits, signaling a direct feud with the looser restrictions under the 5th Circuit.

Beyond the venue shopping issue, the underlying dispute centers on the FDA’s denial of North Carolina-based RJ Reynolds Vapor Company’s bid to introduce three flavored vapors to the market. The company sells its products in convenience stores in the three states under the 5th Circuit’s jurisdiction, allowing it to take advantage of the appeals court’s relaxed restrictions.

Case Professor Jonathan Adler of Western Reserve University Law School described the case as one that “could limit forum shopping in administrative law cases.”

“In FDA vs. Reynolds Vapor The government wants to limit manufacturers’ ability to forum shop by getting retailers to join the cause,” Adler said.

Most of forum shopping, an informal term that involves choosing a court or jurisdiction where victory is considered more likely, typically focuses on a specific type of litigation, such as patent cases.

More recently, forum shopping has been criticized for other legal attempts to shift administrative law, and in particular became a topic of conversation when a federal district court judge in Texas agreed to grant the FDA’s 2000 approval of the drug mifepristone , one of the two medications. taken to induce a chemical abortion. That case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and the justices ruled earlier this year to maintain the status quo on access to abortifacients.

More cases have been added for the autumn period 2024-2025

Although the judges took up 15 additional cases, the move created 13 additional oral arguments as some cases were consolidated for efficiency.

Another notable subsidy was accompanied by a dispute Friday over whether Mexico can file a $10 billion lawsuit against U.S. gun makers for allegedly facilitating the flow of firearms to drug cartels. The case is known as Smith & Wesson Brands v Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

The Supreme Court also agreed to hear a somewhat rare capital case over a death row inmate’s bid to obtain a post-conviction DNA test that he claims would exonerate him. The award of Ruben to Luis is notable because the justices already plan to consider a separate capital case involving Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip.

Other new disputes for the justices to consider this term include an Ohio reverse discrimination case, an environmental case over spent fuel storage, and a Fourth Amendment challenge that sets limits on the use of force by police officers during potentially deadly encounters , among others.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINATOR

The justices have now added 43 cases to their term agenda, with more likely to follow next week, along with a litany of denials, as the justices receive thousands of petitions each year.

The justices are already poised for a successful term, including a dispute over whether states can ban minors from receiving transgender hormone treatments, age verification laws for adult film websites, and oral arguments next week on the ‘ghost gun’ crackdown of the Biden administration.