Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)
Following what the Supreme Court is actually doing can be daunting. Reporting on the subject is often only done within the context of political narratives of the day -- and following the Court's decisions and reading every new case can be a non-starter. The purpose of this Podcast is to make it as easy as possible for members of the public to source information about what is happening at the Supreme Court. For that reason, we read every Opinion Syllabus without any commentary whatsoever. Further, there are no advertisements or sponsors. We call it "information sourcing," and we hope that the podcast is a useful resource for members of the public who want to understand the legal issues of the day, prospective law students who want to get to know legal language and understand good legal writing, and attorneys who can use the podcast to be better advocates for their clients.
*Note this podcast is for informational and educational purposes only.
Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)
FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC (Administrative Law)
In FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, the Supreme Court unanimously vacated a Fifth Circuit decision that found the Food and Drug Administration acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it denied authorization for flavored e-cigarette products. Under the Tobacco Control Act of 2009, manufacturers must receive FDA approval before marketing “new tobacco products,” including most modern e-cigarettes. The Act permits approval only if the product is “appropriate for the protection of the public health,” requiring the FDA to weigh population-wide risks and benefits, including youth usage.
Respondents, manufacturers of flavored e-liquids, submitted premarket applications but failed to provide robust scientific evidence—such as randomized controlled trials or longitudinal studies—showing their products posed fewer risks than tobacco-flavored alternatives. The FDA denied their applications. The Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, held the FDA improperly departed from its own guidance and failed to consider the applicants’ marketing plans, which had been labeled “critical.”
Justice Alito, writing for a unanimous Court, rejected the Fifth Circuit’s findings. The Court held that the FDA’s denials were consistent with its guidance and did not violate the change-in-position doctrine. The FDA had made clear that strong scientific evidence would be necessary and that fruit- and dessert-flavored products were likely to appeal to youth. The Court also found that the Fifth Circuit misread Calcutt v. FDIC in concluding that the FDA’s failure to review the marketing plans required automatic remand. Instead, the harmless-error rule applies in administrative cases, and remand is not always necessary. The case was remanded for further consideration under the correct standard.
Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion.
