The State of Iowa has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to allow enforcement of a 2024 state law that restricts the sale of certain e-cigarette products through a “state directory” mechanism. The law targets products that have not satisfied specific federal premarket requirements. A federal district court previously issued a preliminary injunction, finding that the statute may conflict with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which reserves enforcement authority exclusively to the federal government.

Key Points at a Glance

• Dispute: Iowa’s 2024 law penalizes the sale of e-cigarette products not listed on a state directory
• Directory mechanism: Listing is tied to compliance with certain premarket requirements under the FDCA
• Prior ruling: U.S. District Judge Stephanie Rose issued a preliminary injunction, citing potential conflict with the FDCA’s exclusive federal enforcement provision
• State’s position: Assistant Attorney General Patrick Valencia argues the law contains multiple independent state-law requirements
• Plaintiffs’ position: Attorney James Fraser argues the law depends entirely on the FDCA and amounts to state enforcement of federal law
• Case: Iowans for Alternatives v. Mary Mosiman, No. 25-2087

According to legal news outlet Law, attorneys for the State of Iowa argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that federal law does not preempt the state’s authority to regulate the sale of e-cigarettes within its borders.

At the center of the dispute is a 2024 Iowa statute that imposes penalties on manufacturers that sell e-cigarette products not included in a state-maintained directory. Products may be listed only after manufacturers or retailers satisfy certain premarket requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).

Previously, Chief Judge Stephanie Rose of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law. Judge Rose concluded that the statute may conflict with an FDCA provision stating that “all proceedings for the enforcement, or to restrain violations, of this Act shall be by and in the name of the United States,” thereby granting exclusive enforcement authority to the federal government.

Appearing before the appellate court, Iowa Assistant Attorney General Patrick Valencia argued that a state law incorporating federal standards—but not relying on them exclusively—does not interfere with federal enforcement. He maintained that Iowa’s statute includes several independent state-law requirements and is not merely an extension of the FDCA or the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA).

Counsel for the Iowa vaping industry association, James Fraser, countered that the district court correctly found the law likely preempted by Section 337 of the FDCA. He argued that without the FDCA, Iowa’s law “would be meaningless,” effectively amounting to an attempt by the state to enforce federal law—an authority reserved exclusively to the federal government.

Fraser also noted that the Edina case cited by the state concerned the TCA’s savings clause, rather than the FDCA’s explicit federal preemption language under Section 337.

Image source: LAW