4th Circuit Upholds North Carolina Law Banning Unapproved Vapes

North Carolina Vape Ban Teen Vaping House Bill 900

The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a North Carolina law banning the sale of e-cigarettes that lack federal approval. This decision affirms a federal trial judge’s refusal to block the state’s enforcement, marking a setback for vape manufacturers and retailers fighting state-level crackdowns. A coalition of 28 states filed a brief supporting North Carolina in the legal dispute.

The legal battle focuses on Senate Bill 900 (now SL 2024-31), which curtails the sale of unauthorized electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) within North Carolina. A vape trade group, a manhttps://ecigator.com/news/nc-vape-ban-hb900-july/ufacturer, two retailers, and a consumer sued the state in 2025, arguing that federal law preempted the state-level restrictions.

Judge Stephanie Thacker, writing for the majority, noted that while the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has required pre-market approval for vapes for nearly a decade, federal enforcement has been slow. This regulatory gap prompted North Carolina to step in to curb the influx of unauthorized products.

“The FDA is allowing unapproved vape products to enter the market — that is the FDA’s prerogative,” Thacker wrote. “But North Carolina remains free to prohibit the sale of those products within its borders.” The court ruled this restriction is a valid exercise of state police power and aligns with the savings clause in the federal Tobacco Control Act.

The appellate panel split on the issue of legal standing. The majority agreed that the commercial plaintiffs faced immediate financial harm—either stopping sales of popular products or facing state penalties—which constitutes a valid injury under Article III of the US Constitution.

Judge Marvin Quattlebaum dissented, arguing the case should have been dismissed for lack of standing. He contended that because selling these vapes is already illegal under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the plaintiffs cannot claim a legally protectable interest or standing based on lost revenue from an illegal activity.

Matthew Ma
Follow
Latest posts by Matthew Ma (see all)

Related posts:

Indiana generational tobacco banIndiana’s $2 Cigarette Tax Hike Takes Effect July 1 CBD Teenage BrainThe Unseen Effects of CBD on the Teenage Brain: A Warning Sanibel Beach Smoking BanFlorida: Sanibel Considers Smoking Ban on City Beaches Kazakhstan vape trade police crackdownKazakhstan Initiate Crackdown on Illegal Vape Trade Nicotine Pouch Teen Use Zyn USC Study FDA RegulationTeen Nicotine Pouch Use Nearly Doubled in One Year, USC Study Finds
Indonesia: North Sumatra to Turn Civil Servant Vape Ban Into Regional Lawimage 4Perak Vape Ban Deadline, Malaysia Vape Sales BanMalaysia Weighs Vape Ban as Healthcare Costs Outpace Taxes