Iowa Seeks Approval to Enforce Vape Sales Law
The state of Iowa is requesting permission from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to enforce a 2024 state law that restricts the sale of vape products that do not meet specific federal pre-market requirements through a “state directory” mechanism.
Key Points
- Dispute: Iowa’s 2024 law penalizes the sale of vape products not listed in the state directory.
- Directory Mechanism: Inclusion in the directory is linked to compliance with pre-market requirements under the FDCA.
- Previous Ruling: Federal District Court Judge Stephanie Rose issued a preliminary injunction, finding a likely conflict with the FDCA’s exclusive enforcement clause.
- State’s Argument: Deputy Attorney General Patrick Valencia argues the law contains multiple independent state law requirements.
- Plaintiff’s Argument: James Fraser argues the law relies on the FDCA and is otherwise “meaningless,” representing a state attempt to enforce federal law
- Case: Iowans for Alternatives v. Mary Mosiman, Case No. 25-2087.
Appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court
According to Law.com on January 19, 2026, Iowa attorneys are asking the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to allow enforcement of the challenged state law, arguing that federal law does not preempt state regulation of vape sales.
Overview of the 2024 Iowa Vape Law
The dispute centers on a 2024 Iowa law that imposes penalties on manufacturers for selling vape products not listed in a state government directory. Products are only included in the directory if the manufacturer or retailer meets specific pre-market requirements under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).
District Court Injunction and Preemption Concerns
Chief Judge Stephanie Rose of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa previously issued a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking enforcement of the state law. She found that the law likely conflicts with Section 337 of the FDCA. This provides that enforcement of the Act is exclusively reserved to the federal government.
Iowa’s Argument on Independent State Authority
Iowa Assistant Attorney General Patrick Valencia argued before the appeals court that a state law incorporating federal standards does not automatically interfere with federal enforcement. He contended that the Iowa statute includes several independent state-law requirements and does not rely solely on the FDCA or the Tobacco Control Act (TCA).
Plaintiffs’ Challenge to State Enforcement
James Fraser, representing the Iowa Electronic Cigarette Products Sales Association, maintained that the district court’s finding of likely preemption was correct. He argued that without the FDCA, the Iowa law “would be meaningless,” effectively amounting to a state effort to enforce federal law, an authority reserved exclusively to the federal government.
Distinction from Prior Case Law
Fraser also noted that the Edina case cited by the state addressed preemption under the TCA, rather than the separate and explicit federal preemption language found in Section 337 of the FDCA.
