`
`
`
`No. 22-56052
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY; R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR
`COMPANY; AMERICAN SNUFF COMPANY, LLC; SANTA FE NATURAL
`TOBACCO COMPANY, INC.; MODORAL BRANDS INC.; NEIGHBORHOOD
`MARKET ASSOCIATION, INC.; AND MORIJA LLC DBA VAPIN’ THE 619,
`Plaintiffs-Appellants,
`
`
`
`v.
`ROBERT BONTA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL
`OF CALIFORNIA; AND SUMMER STEPHAN, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY
`AS DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
`Defendants-Appellees.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Southern District of California
`No. 3:22-cv-01755 (Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo)
`
`APPELLANTS’ OPENING BRIEF
`
`Action Necessary by November 29, 2022
`
`
`
`
`Noel J. Francisco
`Christian G. Vergonis
`Ryan J. Watson
`Andrew J. M. Bentz
`JONES DAY
`51 Louisiana Ave., N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`Telephone: (202) 879-3939
`Facsimile: (202) 626-1700
`njfrancisco@jonesday.com
`
`Counsel for Appellants
`
`
`
`Case: 22-56052, 11/18/2022, ID: 12591596, DktEntry: 15, Page 2 of 40
`
`
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`In compliance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, Appellants
`
`disclose the following:
`
`• Appellant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (“RJRT”) states that RJRT is
`a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.;
`R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. is a direct, wholly owned subsidiary
`of Reynolds American Inc.; and Reynolds American Inc. is an indirect,
`wholly owned subsidiary of British American Tobacco, p.l.c., a publicly
`traded company.
`• Appellant R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (“RJRV”) states that RJRV is a
`direct, wholly owned subsidiary of RAI Innovations Company; RAI
`Innovations Company is a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Reynolds
`American Inc.; and Reynolds American Inc. is an indirect, wholly owned
`subsidiary of British American Tobacco, p.l.c., a publicly traded company.
`• Appellant American Snuff Company, LLC (“ASC”) states that ASC is a
`direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Conwood Holdings, Inc.; Conwood
`Holdings, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Reynolds American Inc.;
`and Reynolds American Inc. is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
`British American Tobacco, p.l.c., a publicly traded company.
`• Appellant Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company (“SFNTC”) states that
`SFNTC is a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Reynolds American Inc.;
`and Reynolds American Inc. is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
`British American Tobacco, p.l.c., a publicly traded company.
`• Appellant Modoral Brands Inc. (“Modoral”) states that Modoral is a
`subsidiary of RAI Innovations Company; RAI Innovations Company is a
`direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Reynolds American Inc.; and Reynolds
`American Inc. is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of British American
`Tobacco, p.l.c., a publicly traded company.
`• Appellant Neighborhood Markets Association states that no parent
`corporation or publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock
`exists.
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case: 22-56052, 11/18/2022, ID: 12591596, DktEntry: 15, Page 3 of 40
`
`
`
`• Appellant Morija, LLC dba Vapin’ the 619 states that no parent
`corporation or publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock
`exists.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case: 22-56052, 11/18/2022, ID: 12591596, DktEntry: 15, Page 4 of 40
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ......................................................... i
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION......................................................................... 1
`STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT .............................................. 1
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES.............................................................................. 2
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 3
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................. 5
`A. California Senate Bill 793 ......................................................................... 5
`B. Procedural History ..................................................................................... 7
`STANDARD OF REVIEW ...................................................................................... 9
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 9
`I. WHILE APPELLANTS’ EXPRESS PREEMPTION CLAIM ON THE
`MERITS IS FORECLOSED BY CURRENT NINTH CIRCUIT
`PRECEDENT, THAT PRECEDENT IS WRONG ....................................................... 11
`A. Los Angeles County’s interpretation of the TCA’s
`preemption clause is wrong ..................................................................... 11
`B. Even under Los Angeles County, SB793 falls under the
`TCA’s preemption clause ........................................................................ 16
`C. Los Angeles County misinterpreted the TCA’s savings clause ............... 18
`II. THE BAN WILL IRREPARABLY HARM APPELLANTS .......................................... 23
`III. THE EQUITIES AND PUBLIC INTEREST FAVOR APPELLANTS ............................. 26
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 28
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES .................................................................. 30
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case: 22-56052, 11/18/2022, ID: 12591596, DktEntry: 15, Page 5 of 40
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs.,
`141 S. Ct. 2485 (2021) (per curiam) ................................................................... 23
`Am. Trucking Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles,
`559 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 24
`Arizona v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R.R.,
`656 F.2d 398 (9th Cir. 1981) ................................................................................ 8
`Collins v. Yellen,
`141 S. Ct. 1761 (2021) ........................................................................................ 22
`Dennis Melancon, Inc. v. City of New Orleans,
`703 F.3d 262 (5th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................. 23
`Engine Mfrs. Ass’n v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.,
`541 U.S. 246 (2004) .....................................................................................passim
`Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc.,
`137 S. Ct. 1718 (2017) ........................................................................................ 20
`Holley v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr.,
`599 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 25
`Kentucky v. U.S. ex rel. Hagel,
`759 F.3d 588 (6th Cir. 2014) ........................................................................ 23, 25
`Melendres v. Arpaio,
`695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................. 26
`Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.,
`504 U.S. 374 (1992) ...................................................................................... 24, 26
`Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. v. Dep’t of Def.,
`138 S. Ct. 617 (2018) .......................................................................................... 22
`Nat’l Meat Ass’n v. Harris,
`565 U.S. 452 (2012) .....................................................................................passim
`Neville v. Johnson,
`440 F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 23
`Nken v. Holder,
`556 U.S. 418 (2009) ............................................................................................ 26
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case: 22-56052, 11/18/2022, ID: 12591596, DktEntry: 15, Page 6 of 40
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Odebrecht Constr., Inc. v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Transp.,
`715 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 23
`Puente Ariz. v. Arpaio,
`821 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 9
`R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Becerra,
`No. 20-CV-1990, 2021 WL 3472697 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2021) ........................... 8
`R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. City of Edina,
`482 F. Supp. 3d 875 (D. Minn. 2020) ........................................................... 14, 16
`R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. County of Los Angeles,
`29 F.4th 542 (9th Cir. 2022) ........................................................................passim
`Ramos v. Wolf,
`975 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................. 26
`Rodriguez v. Robbins,
`715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 26
`Rutherford v. Crosby,
`438 F.3d 1087 (11th Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 23
`Shawnee Tribe v. Mnuchin,
`984 F.3d 94 (D.C. Cir. 2021) .............................................................................. 26
`Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc.,
`175 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 1999) .............................................................................. 23
`Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co.,
`240 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001) ........................................................................ 24, 25
`Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich,
`510 U.S. 200 (1994) ............................................................................................ 24
`U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Mfg. Co. v. City of New York,
`708 F.3d 428 (2d Cir. 2013) ......................................................................... 17, 18
`Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting,
`732 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 26
`Washington v. U.S. Dep’t of State,
`996 F.3d 552 (9th Cir. 2021) ................................................................................ 9
`
`v
`
`
`
`Case: 22-56052, 11/18/2022, ID: 12591596, DktEntry: 15, Page 7 of 40
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
`555 U.S. 7 (2008) .................................................................................................. 9
`Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo v. Texas,
`142 S. Ct. 1929 (2022) ............................................................................ 19, 20, 22
`
`
`CONSTITUTIONS, STATUTES, AND LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
`Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA)
`FDCA § 907, 21 U.S.C. § 387g .................................................................... 13, 14
`FDCA § 916, 21 U.S.C. § 387p ...................................................................passim
`28 U.S.C. § 1292 ........................................................................................................ 1
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 ........................................................................................................ 1
`42 U.S.C. § 7543 ...................................................................................................... 13
`Pub. L. No. 100-89, 101 Stat. 666 (1987) ................................................................ 19
`Cal. Const. art. II, § 10 ........................................................................................... 4, 7
`Cal. Elec. Code § 15501 ........................................................................................ 4, 7
`Cal. Health & Safety Code § 104495 ........................................................................ 6
`S.B. 793, 2019–2020 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2020) ....................................................passim
`
`RULES AND REGULATORY MATERIALS
`9th Cir. R. 27-3 .......................................................................................................... 3
`FDA Decision Summary PM0000011 (Nov. 10, 2015) ............................................ 6
`FDA News Release, FDA Grants First-Ever Modified Risk Orders to
`Eight Smokeless Tobacco Products (Oct. 22, 2019) ............................................ 7
`FDA, Deeming Tobacco Products,
`81 Fed. Reg. 28,973 (May 10, 2016) .................................................................. 27
`FDA, Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products after Implementation of an
`FDA Product Standard (Mar. 15, 2018) ............................................................. 15
`FDA, Modified Risk Orders (Mar. 11, 2022) ............................................................ 7
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Case: 22-56052, 11/18/2022, ID: 12591596, DktEntry: 15, Page 8 of 40
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`FDA, Tobacco Product Standard for Menthol in Cigarettes,
`87 Fed. Reg. 26,454 (May 4, 2022) .................................................................... 14
`Fed. R. App. P. 4 ........................................................................................................ 1
`Fed. R. App. P. 34 ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990) .................................................................... 20
`Cal. Sec’y of State, State Ballot Measures – Statewide Results ................................ 3
`2022 California midterm election: Live results, L.A. Times .................................... 3
`Legislative Analyst’s Office, Proposition 31: Referendum on 2020
`Law That Would Prohibit the Retail Sale of Certain Flavored
`Tobacco Products (Nov. 8, 2022) ......................................................................... 8
`RAI Services Company, Comment from RAI Services Company
`(Aug. 3, 2022) ............................................................................................... 27, 28
`Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary (1986) .................................................... 19, 20
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`Case: 22-56052, 11/18/2022, ID: 12591596, DktEntry: 15, Page 9 of 40
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
`The district court had jurisdiction over this action because it arises under the
`
`Constitution and the laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court has
`
`jurisdiction over this action because it is an appeal from an order denying a motion
`
`for a preliminary injunction that the district court entered on November 15, 2022. 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1292; ER-3–4. Appellants timely filed their notice of appeal on November
`
`15, 2022. ER-112–14; see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).
`
`STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
`Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a), Appellants respectfully submit that oral
`
`argument is not warranted. The dispositive issues in this case are currently resolved
`
`by a binding decision of this Court. Accordingly, the proper result is—at this stage
`
`in the proceedings—clear. Oral argument therefore will not assist the Court in
`
`addressing the issues presented, and judicial economy is best served by deciding the
`
`case without oral argument.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case: 22-56052, 11/18/2022, ID: 12591596, DktEntry: 15, Page 10 of 40
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`The federal Tobacco Control Act delineates the division of federal authority
`
`(on the one hand) and state and local authority (on the other) over tobacco products.
`
`In particular, the Act reserves to the federal government the power to enact tobacco
`
`product standards, including regulations about the constituents, additives, and
`
`properties of tobacco products. The Act therefore expressly preempts any state or
`
`local requirements that are different from, or in addition to, federal requirements
`
`relating to tobacco product standards. The Act has a narrow savings clause, which
`
`protects certain state and local requirements relating to the sale of tobacco products.
`
`California, however, enacted a statute prohibiting all sales of any “flavored tobacco
`
`product.” The issue presented is:
`
`1. Whether the Tobacco Control Act expressly preempts California’s
`
`blanket prohibition on the sale of flavored tobacco products.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 22-56052, 11/18/2022, ID: 12591596, DktEntry: 15, Page 11 of 40
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`This appeal involves Plaintiffs-Appellants’ request for a preliminary
`
`injunction enjoining enforcement of a California law that will imminently take effect.
`
`Appellants acquiesced in the denial of the motion below and they acquiesce in this
`
`Court’s affirmance of the decision below, because binding Ninth Circuit precedent
`
`currently forecloses the express preemption claim that is the basis of their motion.
`
`However, Appellants preserve their express preemption claim for purposes of
`
`seeking review in the Supreme Court of the United States. Appellants request that
`
`this Court affirm the district court’s denial of their motion for a preliminary
`
`injunction by November 29, 2022 so that Appellants can promptly seek review in
`
`the Supreme Court. Appellants have also filed an emergency motion for an
`
`injunction pursuant to Circuit Rule 27-3.
`
`On November 8, 2022, Californians approved Senate Bill 793, which will ban
`
`the retail sale of tobacco products with a characterizing flavor other than tobacco
`
`throughout the entire State. See S.B. 793, 2019–2020 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2020)
`
`(“SB793”) (approved by voters on November 8, 2022) (reproduced at ER-28–31);
`
`see Cal. Sec’y of State, State Ballot Measures – Statewide Results, https://tinyurl.
`
`com/224csfnk (last visited Nov. 18, 2022) (reporting that as of 6:22 p.m. on Nov.
`
`17, 2022, 100% of precincts had partially reported results, and 63.5% of voters
`
`approved SB793); see also 2022 California midterm election: Live results, L.A.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case: 22-56052, 11/18/2022, ID: 12591596, DktEntry: 15, Page 12 of 40
`
`
`
`Times, https://tinyurl.com/jdbxbdxw (last visited Nov. 18, 2022) (reporting that
`
`SB793 has been approved). California’s ban is scheduled to go into effect no later
`
`than December 21, 2022. See Cal. Const. art. II, § 10(a); Cal. Elec. Code § 15501(b)
`
`Appellants R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company,
`
`American Snuff Company, LLC, Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc., and
`
`Modoral Brands Inc. (collectively, “Reynolds”), develop, manufacture, market, and
`
`distribute a variety of flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes,
`
`menthol-flavored e-cigarettes, flavored smokeless tobacco products, and flavored
`
`nicotine lozenges and pouches. Appellant Neighborhood Market Association is a
`
`local non-profit industry trade association comprised of various businesses
`
`throughout California, including tobacco retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers,
`
`many of whom sell flavored tobacco products. And Appellant MORIJA, LLC, which
`
`does business as Vapin’ the 619, is a tobacco retailer with a retail establishment in
`
`the City of San Diego, California that exclusively sells electronic smoking devices
`
`and e-liquid tobacco products used in conjunction with such device, including
`
`flavored tobacco products. Because of California’s new ban on the sale of flavored
`
`tobacco products, Reynolds will no longer be able to distribute its flavored tobacco
`
`products for retail sale in one of the Nation’s largest markets and members of the
`
`Neighborhood Market Association, including Vapin’ the 619, will no longer be able
`
`to sell flavored tobacco products in California either.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case: 22-56052, 11/18/2022, ID: 12591596, DktEntry: 15, Page 13 of 40
`
`
`
`Before the district court, Appellants sought a preliminary injunction because
`
`the federal Tobacco Control Act expressly preempts California’s flavor ban,
`
`Appellants face irreparable harm, and the equities favor an injunction. Nonetheless,
`
`Appellants recognized that their express preemption claim is foreclosed by current
`
`Ninth Circuit precedent. See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. County of Los Angeles,
`
`29 F.4th 542 (9th Cir. 2022) (“Los Angeles County”) (upholding Los Angeles
`
`County’s ban on the sale of flavored tobacco products), cert. pending, No. 22-338
`
`(U.S. filed Oct. 7, 2022). Accordingly, Appellants acquiesced in the denial of their
`
`preliminary injunction motion. Because this Court is bound by its prior precedent as
`
`well, Appellants acquiesce here in the affirmance of the district court’s denial of
`
`their motion for a preliminary injunction, but preserve their arguments for further
`
`review.
`
`Because SB793 will take effect no later than December 21, 2022, Appellants
`
`respectfully request that this Court rule on this appeal no later than November 29,
`
`2022.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`A. California Senate Bill 793
`SB793 states that tobacco retailers “shall not sell, offer for sale, or possess
`
`with the intent to sell or offer for sale, a flavored tobacco product or a tobacco
`
`product flavor enhancer.” SB793 § 14559.5(b)(1) (reproduced at ER-28–31).
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case: 22-56052, 11/18/2022, ID: 12591596, DktEntry: 15, Page 14 of 40
`
`
`
`California defines a “[t]obacco product” as “[a] product containing, made, or derived
`
`from tobacco or nicotine that is intended for human consumption,” including
`
`“cigarettes,” “chewing tobacco,” “snuff,” and e-cigarettes. Cal. Health & Safety
`
`Code § 104495(a)(8)(A)(i), (a)(8)(A)(ii).
`
`SB793 defines “[f]lavored tobacco product” as “any tobacco product that
`
`contains a constituent that imparts a characterizing flavor.” SB793 § 104559.5(a)(4).
`
`SB793 defines “[c]haracterizing flavor” as “a distinguishable taste or aroma, or both,
`
`other than the taste or aroma of tobacco, imparted by a tobacco product or any
`
`byproduct produced by
`
`the
`
`tobacco product,”
`
`including “menthol.” Id.
`
`§ 104559.5(a)(1). SB793 thus bans tobacco retailers in California from selling nearly
`
`any type of tobacco product with a characterizing flavor other than tobacco,
`
`including menthol cigarettes or menthol e-cigarettes, and subjects them to criminal
`
`penalties. SB793 would ban a flavored product even if FDA has authorized it to be
`
`sold after considering whether it is “appropriate for the protection of the public
`
`health.” 1 And SB793 would ban flavored products even if FDA has authorized
`
`manufacturers to market them as presenting lower health risks when compared to
`
`
`1 E.g., FDA Decision Summary PM0000011 (Nov. 10, 2015) (authorizing a mint
`snus product), https://tinyurl.com/mw56k4ps.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case: 22-56052, 11/18/2022, ID: 12591596, DktEntry: 15, Page 15 of 40
`
`
`
`using combustible cigarettes. 2 Anyone who violates the law is “guilty of an
`
`infraction” and faces a $250 fine per violation. Id. § 104559.5(f).
`
`SB793 will ban Appellants from selling and distributing many of their
`
`products within California. Reynolds manufactures numerous “[f]lavored tobacco
`
`product[s]”—including menthol cigarettes, menthol-flavored e-cigarettes, various
`
`flavored smokeless tobacco products, and other flavored tobacco products (such as
`
`nicotine pouches and lozenges)—that it distributes for resale to consumers within
`
`California. ER-100; ER-103–04 (Silva Decl. ¶¶ 6–7; Canary-Garner Decl. ¶¶ 4–5).
`
`Members of the Neighborhood Market Association, including Vapin’ the 619,
`
`engage in the retail sale of flavored tobacco products in California. ER-107; ER-
`
`110–11 (Sylvester Decl. ¶¶ 1, 4; Mansour Decl. ¶ 5). Appellants would continue to
`
`distribute and sell these products in California but for SB793.
`
`B.
`Procedural History
`SB793 was approved by voters on November 8, 2022. See supra pp. 1–2.
`
`SB793 will now take effect five days after the Secretary of State certifies the results.
`
`See Cal. Const. art. II, § 10(a). And certification must occur by December 16, 2022.
`
`Cal. Elec. Code § 15501(b). Thus, SB793 will be enforceable no later than
`
`
`2 E.g., FDA News Release, FDA Grants First-Ever Modified Risk Orders to Eight
`Smokeless Tobacco Products (Oct. 22, 2019), https://tinyurl.com/y6ruvbdz
`(authorizing marketing of eight flavored snus products as having “a lower risk [than
`cigarettes] of” certain diseases); see also FDA, Modified Risk Orders (Mar. 11,
`2022), https://tinyurl.com/y2bvbzxv.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case: 22-56052, 11/18/2022, ID: 12591596, DktEntry: 15, Page 16 of 40
`
`
`
`December 21, 2022. Accordingly, Appellants will soon be forced to halt sales and
`
`distribution for resale of flavored tobacco products in California.
`
`Appellants filed suit in the United District Court for the Southern District of
`
`California and moved for a preliminary injunction on November 9 and November
`
`10, 2022, respectively. ER-5, ER-32.3
`
`On November 15, 2022, the district court denied the motion for a preliminary
`
`injunction. ER-3–4. The court wrote found that R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. County
`
`of Los Angeles, 29 F.4th 542 (9th Cir. 2022), cert. pending, No. 22-338 (U.S. filed
`
`Oct. 7, 2022), “currently forecloses Plaintiffs’ express preemption claim in [that
`
`court],” and that court “therefore must deny the motion for a preliminary injunction
`
`and an injunction pending appeal.” ER-4. The court noted that Appellants “have
`
`nevertheless preserved their claim … for further appellate review.” ER-4. This
`
`appeal followed. ER-112–14 (Notice of Appeal).
`
`
`3 The district court had dismissed Appellants’ prior challenge to SB793 as
`unripe after the referendum on SB793 qualified for the ballot. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
`Co. v. Becerra, No. 20-CV-1990, 2021 WL 3472697, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2021);
`see Legislative Analyst’s Office, Proposition 31: Referendum on 2020 Law That
`Would Prohibit the Retail Sale of Certain Flavored Tobacco Products (Nov. 8,
`2022), https://tinyurl.com/2s3v32z8. Now that voters have approved SB793, there is
`no question that SB793 will go into effect (absent judicial relief). The case is thus
`ripe. See Arizona v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R.R., 656 F.2d 398, 402–03 (9th
`Cir. 1981) (challenge to statute ripe before its effective date).
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case: 22-56052, 11/18/2022, ID: 12591596, DktEntry: 15, Page 17 of 40
`
`
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`This Court reviews the denial of a preliminary injunction for “an abuse of
`
`discretion, the underlying legal conclusions de novo, and factual findings for clear
`
`error.” Washington v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 996 F.3d 552, 560 (9th Cir. 2021).
`
`ARGUMENT
`But for this Court’s 2-1 decision in Los Angeles County, 29 F.4th 542,
`
`Appellants would be entitled to a preliminary injunction. A plaintiff is entitled to a
`
`preliminary injunction if (1) “he is likely to succeed on the merits,” (2) he “is likely
`
`to suffer irreparable harm” absent preliminary relief, (3) “the balance of equities tips
`
`in his favor,” and (4) an “injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.
`
`Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Under the Ninth Circuit’s “sliding scale” test,
`
`injunctive relief is also appropriate where the plaintiff raises “serious questions” as
`
`to the merits and “the balance of hardships tips sharply in [plaintiff’s] favor.” Puente
`
`Ariz. v. Arpaio, 821 F.3d 1098, 1103 n.4 (9th Cir. 2016).
`
`As to the merits, the federal Tobacco Control Act (“TCA”) preempts state
`
`laws (like SB793) that regulate the flavors that manufacturers can add to tobacco
`
`products, and does not save from preemption laws (like SB793) prohibiting the sale
`
`of such products. 21 U.S.C. § 387p(a). Moreover, Appellants satisfy the other factors
`
`for a preliminary injunction. Without an injunction, Appellants and numerous
`
`Californians will face serious, uncompensable injuries. For example, if SB793 goes
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case: 22-56052, 11/18/2022, ID: 12591596, DktEntry: 15, Page 18 of 40
`
`
`
`into effect, Vapin’ the 619 will likely have to close shop completely and lay off its
`
`employees. Many members of NMA are in the same boat. In addition, Modoral,
`
`which manufactures only flavored tobacco products, will be entirely cut off from
`
`one of the Nation’s largest markets. And other Reynolds entities will need to spend
`
`tens of millions of dollars to compete for former menthol smokers who do not wish
`
`to stop using tobacco products. None of these injuries can be compensated with
`
`monetary damages given California’s sovereign immunity. By contrast, the State
`
`will suffer little or no harm from a preliminary injunction because it would merely
`
`maintain the status quo temporarily.
`
`The plaintiffs in Los Angeles County (including several Appellants in this case)
`
`have sought Supreme Court review of that decision. And Appellants here preserve
`
`their express preemption claim for further review. Appellants recognize, however,
`
`that, at this time, this Court is bound by Los Angeles County to reject the merits of
`
`their express preemption claim and therefore to affirm the denial of their motion for
`
`a preliminary injunction. Appellants request that this Court do so promptly—but no
`
`later than November 29, 2022—so that Appellants can seek relief promptly from the
`
`Supreme Court.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case: 22-56052, 11/18/2022, ID: 12591596, DktEntry: 15, Page 19 of 40
`
`
`
`I. WHILE APPELLANTS’ EXPRESS PREEMPTION CLAIM ON THE MERITS IS
`FORECLOSED BY CURRENT NINTH CIRCUIT PRECEDENT, THAT PRECEDENT
`IS WRONG.
`Appellants recognize that their express preemption claim is foreclosed in this
`
`Court by Los Angeles County, 29 F.4th 542. To preserve their arguments for further
`
`review, Appellants explain below that (i) Los Angeles County’s interpretation of the
`
`TCA’s preemption clause is incorrect, (ii) SB793 falls within the TCA’s preemption
`
`clause even under this Court’s erroneous decision, and (iii) Los Angeles County’s
`
`alternative holding concerning the TCA’s savings clause is likewise incorrect.
`
`A.
`
`Los Angeles County’s interpretation of the TCA’s preemption
`clause is wrong.
`Under the federal Tobacco Control Act, states and localities have broad
`
`authority to regulate the sale of tobacco products. They can raise the minimum
`
`purchase age, restrict sales to particular times and locations, and enforce licensing
`
`regimes. But one thing they cannot do is completely prohibit the sale of those
`
`products for failing to meet state or local “tobacco product standards.” That is
`
`because the TCA’s preemption clause specifically denies states and localities the
`
`power to enact “any” “requirement which is different from, or in addition to,” federal
`
`“tobacco product standards.” 21 U.S.C. § 387p(a)(2)(A) (emphasis added). Despite
`
`that clause, however, this Court held that a state or locality can evade preemption by
`
`simply framing its law as a ban on the sale of products that do not meet the state or
`
`local standard. Los Angeles County, 29 F.4th 542.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case: 22-56052, 11/18/2022, ID: 12591596, DktEntry: 15, Page 20 of 40
`
`
`
`That decision was wrong. Indeed, as Judge Nelson’s dissent in Los Angeles
`
`County noted, “[i]n the last two decades, the Supreme Court has twice reversed [the
`
`Ninth Circuit] for failing to find California regulations expressly preempted.” Id. at
`
`562 (Nelson, J., dissenting) (citing first Engine Mfrs. Ass’n v. S. Coast Air Quality
`
`Mgmt. Dist., 541 U.S. 246 (2004); and then Nat’l Meat Ass’n v. Harris, 565 U.S.
`
`452 (2012)).
`
`1. The TCA’s preemption clause preempts “any” local “requirement which is
`
`different from, or in addition to,” federal “tobacco product standards.” 21 U.S.C.
`
`§ 387p(a)(2)(A) (emphasis added). Nonetheless, this Court held that as long as a
`
`local law enforcing such a requirement is framed as a sales ban, the local law is not
`
`preempted. The panel majority explained that Los Angeles’s Ordinance was “merely
`
`banning the sale of a certain type of tobacco product, not dictating how that product
`
`must be produced.” 29 F.4th at 556 (emphasis added). That, in the panel majority’s
`
`view, was dispositive, because “tobacco product standards” do not include sales
`
`regulations or prohibitions.
`
`This Court’s holding conflicts with the Supreme Court’s repeated admonition
`
`that states and localities cannot evade preemption by simply enforcing their
`
`standards at the point of sale. In Engine Manufacturers, the Supreme Court rejected
`
`the Ninth Circuit’s atextual limitation on such a preemption clause. There, California
`
`prohibited the purchase of cars that did not meet local emission standards. 541 U.S.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case: 22-56052, 11/18/2022, ID: 12591596, DktEntry: 15, Page 21 of 40
`
`
`
`at 248–49. The Clean Air Act, however, expressly preempted states from adopting
`
`“standard[s] relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles.” 42