A group of U.S. vape sellers and buyers urged the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a lower court ruling blocking the enforcement of Iowa’s HF 2677 bill. The law mandates that all vapes sold within the state must obtain FDA authorization. The petition argues that the law is superseded by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as it imposes mandatory premarket approval requirements on the FDA and levies penalties in areas where the FDA has not yet implemented regulations. vape groups warn that implementation would force businesses to shut down and deprive consumers of smoking cessation tools.
Key Points:
- Legal Conflict: Iowa law requires vapes to obtain FDA authorization, but the FDA employs a case-by-case review process, allowing some unapproved products to remain on the market.
- Federal Supremacy: The district court ruled the state law was preempted by federal law; the state government appealed to the Eighth Circuit.
- Industry Impact: Vape groups assert that enforcement would lead to business closures and deprive consumers of smoking cessation tools.
- Standing: The state government challenges the groups’ standing to sue, arguing their petition violates federal law. The groups counter that the FDA’s enforcement discretion should not be determined by a state.
- Legal Outlook: The case’s outcome will shape the regulation of the vape industry and consumer rights, making the Eighth Circuit’s ruling highly anticipated.
Iowa’s E-Cigarette Law Faces Challenge
August 28, 2025 — According to a Law360 report on August 27, a group of vape sellers and buyers urged the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals not to overturn an injunction blocking enforcement of an Iowa law. The law requires vapes sold in Iowa to obtain authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They argued that the district court correctly found the law was superseded by federal law.
In their brief, the group—led by Iowans for Alternatives to Smoking & Tobacco—countered the state’s appeal, arguing the new law effectively mandates compliance with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which Congress has authorized the FDA to enforce.
Industry says new rules will destroy the sector and violate FDA enforcement discretion
According to the brief, the FDA exercises its discretion by reviewing vape products on a case-by-case basis for premarket authorization, allowing some products to remain on the market without approval. Iowa’s law imposes civil penalties in areas where the FDA chooses not to enforce its regulations.
The complaint further argues that while states may implement other restrictions not preempted by federal law—such as banning certain flavors or limiting nicotine concentrations—the statute’s incorporation and reference to the FDCA means it is preempted by federal law.
Federal Supremacy
Furthermore, according to the complaint, provisions of the law would be ineffective without the backing of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, placing it entirely within the scope of federal preemption.
The lawsuit challenges HF 2677, which empowers the Iowa Department of Revenue to impose fines on vape retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers that fail to certify their electronic nicotine delivery system products as authorized by the FDA.
Industry Impact
U.S. District Judge Stephanie M. Rose blocked the law’s enforcement in May, ruling it preempted because it infringed upon the FDA’s authority to regulate vapes under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
The state appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing in its July brief that vape stakeholders and other plaintiffs lacked standing because their lawsuit effectively sought to continue violating federal law. Additionally, the state noted that historically, states have been permitted to regulate tobacco sales where federal law does not preempt.
In an August 26 brief, the vape stakeholders defended their standing, contending the state erroneously equated their actual harm with that of drug traffickers and users. They argued that since the FDA is exercising its enforcement discretion, Iowa should not determine whether vape sales or use are “illegal.”
The complaint further states that vape companies claim they would be forced to cease operations if HF 2677 were implemented, leaving consumers unable to access devices they use to quit smoking—a circumstance that sufficiently demonstrates their harm and irreparable loss.
These companies further contend that under HF 2677, they would not only lose sales from banned vape products but also be compelled to shut down all operations—including those explicitly authorized by the FDA.
Should the law not be blocked, the companies argue, they could raise substitution as a defense in any enforcement actions against them. Therefore, they assert they have standing to challenge the law in anticipation of enforcement.
The case is numbered 25-2087 before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
