NCLA Amicus Brief Asks Supreme Court to Read Judicial Review Statute Broadly, as Congress Wrote It

Core Viewpoint - The case of FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company addresses whether retailers can challenge FDA's decisions regarding the sale of vaping products, with implications for judicial review rights under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA) [1][4][5]. Group 1: Legal Context - Under the TCA, manufacturers must obtain FDA approval to sell certain vaping products, and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company's application for its "Vuse" e-cigarettes was denied, leading to a ban on sales by retailers [1]. - Retailers filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, claiming the FDA's decision adversely affected their sales [1]. - The Fifth Circuit ruled that retailers have standing to challenge the FDA's decision, rejecting the FDA's argument that only manufacturers could be adversely affected [1]. Group 2: Implications of the Case - The outcome of this case could set a precedent affecting the scope of judicial review provisions across various statutes, potentially limiting the ability of individuals and businesses to seek relief from agency actions [5]. - NCLA's amicus brief emphasizes the importance of maintaining broad judicial review rights for all parties adversely affected by FDA decisions, in line with Congressional intent [5]. Group 3: Advocacy and Perspectives - NCLA argues that restricting the right to sue FDA to only parties involved in agency proceedings undermines the controlling statute and Supreme Court precedent [4][5]. - The organization highlights the necessity for accountability from the FDA, given its significant regulatory power over individuals and businesses [6].