Alabama Supreme Court Upholds 2025 Vape Law Against Industry Appeal

Alabama Vape Ban, SB9 Alabama, Clean Indoor Air Act

The Alabama Supreme Court has cleared the way for continued enforcement of the state’s strict 2025 vape law. In a ruling delivered on Thursday, the state’s highest court affirmed a trial court’s decision to deny a preliminary injunction sought by the Vapor Technology Association and Southside Vape.

The plaintiffs had argued that key provisions of the law regulating electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are preempted by the federal Tobacco Control Act. They also claimed the regulations violate the U.S. Constitution’s Dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against foreign commerce. However, the Supreme Court rejected these arguments, concluding that the industry challengers failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.

Writing for the court, Associate Justice Will Sellers emphasized that Alabama was operating well within its traditional police powers. “This case is a prime example of a State’s retention of authority under its general police powers to regulate a matter of legitimate statewide concern, specifically the health and welfare of its citizens,” Sellers wrote. He added that the Legislature has a legitimate interest in protecting citizens by regulating potentially harmful products and restricting their sale.

Enacted during Alabama’s 2025 legislative session, the law significantly tightens the state’s grip on the vaping market. Key measures of the legislation include:

  • Limiting the sale of most ENDS products strictly to specialty vape retailers.
  • Establishing rigorous new licensing requirements for distributors and sellers.
  • Increasing penalties for compliance violations.
  • Implementing stricter measures to curb youth access to vaping devices.

While public health advocates support the law as a necessary step to curb youth vaping and remove unauthorized products, industry groups argue it unfairly restricts adult access and harms convenience stores. This ruling does not resolve the final merits of the underlying lawsuit, but it ensures the law remains fully enforceable as the legal battle proceeds.

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

Related posts:

UNSW vape cancer study, New Zealand ASH vapingNew Zealand to Ban Vaping in Bars and Workplaces Illegal Vapes Australia Queensland Vape CrackdownQueensland Seizes $8.8M in Illegal Vapes & Tobacco Generational Smoking Ban UK, Tobacco and Vapes BillTwo-Thirds of Brits Oppose Generational Smoking Ban: Poll Debate Over Vape Flavors banThe Debate Over Vape Flavors: Balancing Public Health and Harm Reduction Newton tobacco ban Massachusetts townsNewton City Council in Connecticut Approves Generational Tobacco Ban Tennessee Vape FDA Tax Registry BillTennessee’s New Vape Law: Product Directory & Massive Fines
Scotland Considers 15m Vape Ban Around Schools and PlaygroundsScotland vape display banFDA Nicotine Pouch PMTA Fast-TrackFiserv, BP Warn US Stores as FDA Vape Enforcement Intensifies