throbber
Case: 22-56052, 11/18/2022, ID: 12591596, DktEntry: 15, Page 1 of 40
`
`
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket