Food and Drug Administration v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.
Petitioner Food and Drug Administration · Respondent R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.
- Reporter
- 606 U.S. ___ (2025)
- From
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- How it got here
- writ of <i>certiorari</i>
Can retailers who would sell a new tobacco product seek judicial review of the FDA’s denial of a manufacturer’s marketing application under the Tobacco Control Act?
Question before the CourtWhat happened
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company manufactures e-cigarettes, including the popular menthol- and mixed-berry-flavored Vuse Alto products. When the FDA announced in 2016 that e-cigarettes would be regulated as “new tobacco products” under the Tobacco Control Act, RJR Vapor timely applied for authorization to continue marketing its Vuse Alto products. Three years later, the FDA denied the applications, finding that RJR Vapor had failed to demonstrate that marketing these products would be “appropriate for the protection of the public health.” Rather than challenging the denial alone in either the D.C. Circuit or the Fourth Circuit (where it could properly file), RJR Vapor joined with retailers to file a joint petition in the Fifth Circuit: Avail Vapor Texas, L.L.C. (a Texas company operating a Vuse store in Houston), the Mississippi Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores Association, and another RJR corporate affiliate that sold Vuse products online. The FDA moved to dismiss the joint petition for lack of venue or alternatively to transfer it to the D.C. Circuit or Fourth Circuit, arguing that only disappointed applicants—not retailers—are “adversely affected” by denial orders under the Tobacco Control Act and thus have the right to seek judicial review. A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied the FDA’s motion, concluding that venue was proper because the retailers were “adversely affected” by the denial order and could properly petition for review.
Cross-aisle coalition.
The split did not track the usual ideological lines — justices from both wings landed on the same side.
The opinions 2
Amy Coney Barrett
Joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Joined by Sotomayor.
The holding
The Tobacco Control Act’s provision that “any person adversely affected” by the FDA’s denial of a marketing application may seek judicial review extends to retailers who would sell the new tobacco product, not just the manufacturers who applied for approval. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court. The phrase “adversely affected” is a term of art in administrative law that the Court has consistently interpreted broadly. When Congress uses variations of this phrase across different statutes, the Court presumes it carries the same meaning as in the Administrative Procedure Act—covering anyone “arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute.” Congress reinforced this broad interpretation by using “any person” rather than limiting review to “the applicant.” The Court’s precedents from other contexts, including employment discrimination and fair housing cases, confirm that “adversely affected” encompasses more than just the direct recipient of agency action. Retailers face a direct, significant impact from denial orders because they lose the opportunity to profit from selling the product and face criminal penalties if they sell it without authorization. The statutory structure confirms Congress intended different scopes for different provisions. While the Act limits challenges to withdrawal of existing approvals to only “the holder of [the] application,” it uses the broader “any person adversely affected” language for initial denials. This deliberate use of materially different terms creates a presumption that Congress intended different meanings. The FDA’s arguments focusing on the application process and confidentiality provisions cannot override the plain language Congress chose for the judicial review provision. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, arguing that retailers fall outside the statute’s zone of interests because the premarket approval scheme involves only manufacturers and the FDA, with no mechanism for retailer participation.
Argued by
- Vivek Suri for the Petitioners
- Ryan J. Watson for the Respondents
Case path
- Oct 4, 2024 granted
- Jan 21, 2025 argued
- Jun 20, 2025 decided

