Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals adversely affected by FDA orders can challenge the agency in court, affirming the right of retailers to contest FDA decisions that impact their sales [1][2][3]. Group 1: Legal Context - Under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA), manufacturers must obtain FDA approval to sell certain vaping products, such as R.J. Reynolds' "Vuse" e-cigarettes [2]. - The FDA denied R.J. Reynolds' application, which led to a ban on the sale of Vuse e-cigarettes by retailers who were previously allowed to sell them while the application was pending [2]. - Retailers argued that the FDA's decision adversely affected them by resulting in lost sales, leading to a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [2]. Group 2: Court Rulings - The Fifth Circuit ruled that retailers have standing to challenge the FDA's decision, rejecting the FDA's argument that only the manufacturer could be considered "adversely affected" under the TCA [2]. - The Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's judgment, reinforcing the broad interpretation of "adversely affected" as it relates to judicial review of agency actions [3]. Group 3: Implications of the Ruling - The ruling prevents the FDA from narrowing the scope of judicial review provisions under the TCA and other statutes, allowing those harmed by agency actions to seek relief in federal court [3]. - The decision is seen as a significant affirmation of the ability for individuals and entities to challenge federal regulations, even if they were not directly involved in the agency's decision-making process [4].