Iowa urges Eighth Circuit to allow enforcement of challenged e-cigarette directory law

Key Takeaways

• Iowa’s 2024 law penalizes sales of e-cigarette products not listed on a state directory

• Listing is tied to FDCA premarket requirements for the product

• Chief U.S. District Judge Stephanie Rose preliminarily blocked enforcement based on FDCA exclusive enforcement language

• Iowa Deputy Solicitor General Patrick Valencia argued the law includes independent state-law requirements

• Attorney James Fraser argued the statute effectively enforces the FDCA and would not “make any sense” without it

• Case: Iowans for Alternatives v. Mary Mosiman, No. 25-2087

2Firsts, January 19, 2025 – According to LAW, an attorney for Iowa urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to allow enforcement of a challenged state law restricting the sale of e-cigarette products, arguing that federal law does not override the state regulations.

At issue is a 2024 Iowa law that penalizes manufacturers that sell e-cigarette products not listed on a state-run directory. The report says products are included on the list only when the manufacturer or retailer follows certain premarket requirements for the product established under the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).

Chief U.S. District Judge Stephanie Rose of the Southern District of Iowa preliminarily blocked the law, saying it conflicts with an FDCA provision stating that “all such proceedings for the enforcement, or to restrain violations, of this [Act] shall be by and in the name of the United States,” which the court read as granting the federal government exclusive enforcement authority.

Iowa Deputy Solicitor General Patrick Valencia argued that state laws incorporating federal standards — but not relying solely on them — do not create an obstacle to federal enforcement. He said Iowa’s statute contains independent state-law requirements separate from any reliance on the FDCA or the Tobacco Control Act (TCA).

The panel, consisting of Judges James Loken, Raymond Gruender and L. Steven Grasz, pressed Valencia on whether the Eighth Circuit’s 2023 decision in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco v. City of Edina, Minnesota governs the dispute. Valencia argued Edina recognized that the TCA includes a “savings clause” preserving state regulation of tobacco product sales, and said the court should apply that clause to uphold Iowa’s law.

James Fraser, representing an Iowa trade association of e-cigarette sellers, argued the district court correctly held the Iowa law is likely preempted by Section 337 of the FDCA. He said the statute would not “make any sense” without the FDCA and amounts to the state trying to enforce the FDCA, which only the federal government may do. Fraser also argued Edina addressed the TCA savings clause rather than the FDCA’s Section 337 preemption language.

Image source: LAW