WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court's decision on Tuesday to review whether the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) unlawfully declined to approve flavored e-cigarettes, which are popular among teenagers, marks a pivotal moment for examining the FDA's regulatory authority over nicotine products amid their increasing availability and the evolving landscape of vaping.

E-cigarette manufacturers have launched legal challenges nationwide to contest FDA decisions. While the FDA has largely prevailed in earlier cases, it sought Supreme Court review following a January ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of two vape companies. The appeals court concluded that the FDA had improperly assessed the companies' applications, citing violations of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Triton Distribution, known for e-liquids such as "Signature Series Mom's Pistachio" and "Suicide Bunny Mother's Milk and Cookies," and Vapestasia, seeking approval for flavors like "Iced Pineapple Express" and "Killer Kustard Blueberry," brought the issue to the forefront.

The Supreme Court's decision to take up this case has significant implications, particularly as it also considers three other appeals from vape companies that were unsuccessful in lower courts. This consolidated review underscores the complexity and national significance of the issue surrounding flavored e-cigarettes.

The FDA's stance against approving flavored vapes centers on concerns that these products may contribute to an increase in youth tobacco use, despite their widespread availability. The agency argues that the potential health risks associated with flavored vapes outweigh any benefits they may offer in helping adults quit smoking. Manufacturers, however, counter that their products can serve as effective tools for smoking cessation among adults.

Recent FDA actions have further complicated the regulatory landscape. While the agency recently permitted menthol-flavored e-cigarettes, it also reversed a previous ban on Juul's vape products. These decisions highlight the ongoing debate and shifting policies surrounding the marketing and availability of e-cigarette products.

As public health concerns over the effects of vaping continue to escalate, the Supreme Court's decision to schedule oral arguments in the upcoming term, spanning from October 2024 to June 2025, assumes critical importance. It signifies a key moment in determining the scope and limits of the FDA's authority over nicotine products, amidst ongoing developments in public health research and industry dynamics.

The outcome of this case could potentially shape future regulations governing e-cigarettes and other nicotine delivery systems, impacting public health strategies aimed at curbing youth tobacco use and supporting smoking cessation efforts among adults. The Supreme Court's deliberations will likely draw extensive attention from stakeholders across the health sector, regulatory agencies, and the vaping industry, influencing policies and practices nationwide.