�鶹Ů��

The Supreme Court on Monday will hear a dispute over the Food and Drug Administration's refusal to approve flavored e-cigarettes over public health concerns. The case puts the FDA's role in approving new tobacco products under the microscope at a time when e-cigarettes, or vapes, have flooded the market. Makers of flavored vapes have brought various cases around the country challenging FDA decisions. (Hurley, 12/2)

FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, which the Supreme Court will hear on the first Monday in December, is a significant case in its own right. It involves the Food and Drug Administration’s long-delayed attempt to regulate flavored nicotine vapes and to prevent children from becoming addicted to nicotine because they are enticed by vapes with fruit or candy flavors. But the case is also significant for another reason. Seven federal appeals courts unanimously rejected legal challenges to the FDA’s decision not to authorize certain flavored vapes and e-cigarettes. Only one outlier court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, took a position that is unusually favorable to tobacco companies, which led us to this Supreme Court case. (Millhiser, 11/25)

Six years after teen vaping was declared an epidemic, the use of e-cigarettes by young people has declined to its lowest level in a decade. “That’s a big deal,” Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said in September when announcing usage had dropped to 6% among middle and high school students. Now the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Monday about whether one of the moves that contributed to that decline – the federal government’s blocking of millions of e-cigarette products with flavors like “Jimmy the Juice Man Peachy Strawberry,” “Killer Kustard,” and “Iced Pineapple Express” – was correctly handled. (Groppe, 12/1)

When the Supreme Court hears an appeal Wednesday from transgender youths challenging a Tennessee ban on their medical care, fundamental principles forbidding sex discrimination will be on the line. The justices’ view of whether landmark decisions tracing back a half-century apply to transgender rights will affect more than the access of young people to puberty blockers and hormone treatments. At the case’s core is the crucial question of how much judicial scrutiny laws regarding transgender individuals demand. (Biskupic, 12/2)

When the Supreme Court this week wades into the contentious issue of transgender rights, the justices will hear from an attorney with knowledge that runs deep. Chase Strangio will be the first openly transgender attorney to argue before the nation’s highest court, representing families who say Tennessee’s ban on health care for transgender minors leaves their children terrified about the future. (Whitehurst, 12/2)