Alabama Supreme Court Allows 2025 Vape Regulations to Remain in Effect
The Alabama Supreme Court has upheld a lower court’s ruling, denying a request for a preliminary injunction by the Vapor Technology Association (VTA) and retailer Southside Vape, LLC to block the enforcement of the state’s 2025 regulations on electronic nicotine delivery systems.
The law requires that products listed in the state’s product directory generally be manufactured in the United States or have received marketing authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Key Highlights
- The Vapor Technology Association (VTA) and Southside Vape, LLC lost their bid for a preliminary injunction.
- The Alabama Supreme Court allowed the state’s 2025 vape regulations to remain in effect.
- The law establishes a product directory for electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS).
- Products in the directory generally must be U.S.-manufactured or hold FDA marketing authorization.
- The court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional challenge.
July 10, 2026. According to the legal information service VitalLaw and the text of the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling, the Vapor Technology Association (VTA) and retailer Southside Vape, LLC suffered an initial defeat in their lawsuit challenging Alabama’s vape regulations.
The Alabama Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s decision to deny a preliminary injunction that sought to halt the enforcement of the state’s 2025 regulations governing electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS).
The case concerns Alabama Act No. 2025-403. The court determined that while the plaintiffs had standing to sue, they failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional challenge at this stage of the proceedings.
Alabama Vape Law Establishes ENDS Product Directory System
According to the ruling, Alabama Act No. 2025-403 took effect on June 1, 2025, regulating electronic nicotine delivery systems and e-liquids.
These products generally include vapes, vaping devices, and related e-liquid products. The law establishes a directory system for vape products and sets conditions for products to be included in that directory.
Under the relevant provisions, effective October 1, 2025, manufacturers of e-liquids and alternative nicotine products sold in Alabama must submit certification documents to the Alabama Department of Revenue, attesting that their products comply with federal legal requirements.
Additionally, Alabama law stipulates that for e-liquids, electronic nicotine delivery systems, and alternative nicotine products to be listed in the state directory, they generally must meet one of the following criteria:
- The product and its components are manufactured, packaged, labeled, and produced in the United States; or
- The manufacturer has obtained a marketing order or other authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
VTA and Vape Retailer Challenge Alabama Regulations
The plaintiffs in the case are the Vapor Technology Association (VTA) and vape retailer Southside Vape, LLC.
The VTA is an industry trade association for vape products, while Southside Vape, LLC operates specialty vape shops in southern Alabama.
The two plaintiffs previously filed suit in the Montgomery Circuit Court, seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent Alabama from enforcing the law.
The lower court issued a temporary restraining order but subsequently denied the request for a preliminary injunction, while extending the temporary restraining order pending appeal.
The plaintiffs argued that Alabama’s vape law is preempted by federal law and violates the “Dormant Commerce Clause” of the U.S. Constitution. They further claimed that the law could result in lost profits, employee turnover, and even the risk of store closures.
Alabama Supreme Court Finds Standing but Rejects Injunction Request
The Alabama Supreme Court held that the losses alleged by the plaintiffs were not merely hypothetical risks but could stem directly from the law’s enforcement. Consequently, the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the law’s constitutionality.
However, regarding the issuance of a preliminary injunction, the court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims.
The court noted that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the Alabama law was preempted by federal law. The court further held that the law serves legitimate state interests related to the health and safety of state residents, particularly concerning the protection of youth health.
Consequently, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision to deny a preliminary injunction.
Procedurally, the State of Alabama prevailed at the preliminary injunction stage, as the Vapor Technology Association and Southside Vape, LLC failed to halt the law’s enforcement.
Court Reviews Restrictions on Foreign-Made Vape Products
The text of the ruling indicates that Alabama law imposes restrictions on foreign-manufactured electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) products.
In its analysis, the court acknowledged that the law clearly involves disparate treatment regarding foreign trade but determined that the state had presented legitimate justifications related to health and safety.
Citing the state legislature’s findings. The court noted that pending effective regulation of U.S. vape products by the FDA, it was necessary for Alabama to restrict and prohibit the sale of foreign vape products to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its residents.
This aspect has drawn heightened attention to the case regarding the vape supply chain. For vape products relying on overseas manufacturing or importation, the Alabama statute incorporates FDA authorization and U.S. manufacturing requirements into the framework for state-level market access.
Industry Impact: State Vape Regulations Increase Compliance Requirements
The Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling demonstrates that state-level product registry laws for vapes continue to receive judicial support.
<p>In recent years, numerous U.S. states have moved to establish product registries or Premarket Tobacco Product Application (PMTA) registration systems for ENDS products, making market access conditional on factors such as FDA marketing authorization, status within the FDA review process, and compliance with state certification requirements.<p>The Alabama statute goes further by adding requirements for U.S. manufacturing or FDA authorization, creating a stronger impact on imported vape products.
Future Outlook for U.S. Vape Product Compliance
<p>For vape manufacturers, importers, and retailers, this case illustrates that state-level regulations are no longer limited to issues such as age verification, taxation, or retail licensing.
Regulatory requirements are increasingly expanding to areas including:
- Product origin requirements
- Manufacturing location
- FDA authorization status
- State product registry eligibility
- Supply chain compliance
<p>However, this ruling applies only to the preliminary injunction stage and does not constitute a final judgment on all substantive legal issues.<p>The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate, at this stage, a reasonable likelihood of success on their constitutional claims. Future litigation developments, judicial outcomes regarding similar laws in other states, and differing federal court rulings on vape product registry laws will continue to influence the U.S. regulatory environment.
From an international supply chain perspective, the Alabama case is particularly important for overseas vape manufacturers. As U.S. state-level market access rules become increasingly connected with FDA authorizations, product registry requirements, and manufacturing origin standards, compliance requirements for exporters entering the U.S. market may continue to increase.
