Two major cigar trade groups are urging a federal appeals court to reconsider its January ruling and bring an end to a nearly decade-long legal battle between the cigar industry and the U.S. Food & Drug Administration.
On Monday, Michael Edney, lead attorney for the Cigar Rights of America (CRA) and the Premium Cigar Association (PCA), filed a request with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The filing seeks a rehearing of the court’s decision in Cigar Association of America et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administration et al., a lawsuit that began in 2016 and continues to shape the regulatory landscape for premium cigars.
The appeal asks the court to overturn its earlier decision, effectively closing the case and halting further debate over the federal definition of “premium cigar.” This definition is crucial, as cigars that meet its criteria are exempt from FDA deeming regulations, which include product approval requirements, advertising restrictions, and user fees.
However, while CRA and PCA support ending the lawsuit without further discussion on the definition, the third plaintiff, the Cigar Association of America (CAA), does not. As with many disputes between these trade groups, the disagreement centers on flavored cigars, reports Halfwheel.
The Importance of the Premium Cigar Definition
The January appeals court ruling rejected the government’s arguments, marking a win for the cigar industry. However, it also sent the case back to Judge Amit P. Mehta to finalize the definition of “premium cigar.” Currently, the FDA’s definition—introduced in 2020—requires a cigar to meet eight criteria to qualify:
- Wrapped in whole tobacco leaf
- Contains a 100% leaf tobacco binder
- Has at least 50% long-filler tobacco by weight
- Handmade or hand-rolled with no machinery, apart from simple tools
- Lacks a filter, nontobacco tip, or nontobacco mouthpiece
- Contains no characterizing flavor other than tobacco
- Made only with tobacco, water, and vegetable gum
- Weighs more than 6 pounds per 1,000 units
Under this definition, nearly every cigar sold in a humidor qualifies—except flavored cigars, which remain regulated.
This definition was initially proposed while the FDA was navigating two federal lawsuits. In addition to the premium cigar case, the agency had recently lost a lawsuit in Maryland that accused it of delaying regulations announced in 2016. In response, the FDA temporarily exempted premium cigars while it conducted further research, a move intended to satisfy both legal challenges. As a result, parts of the premium cigar lawsuit continued, while others were paused.
Though first introduced by the FDA, some industry insiders have referred to this as the “Mehta definition” due to Judge Mehta’s involvement. The FDA originally deferred enforcement on products meeting these criteria, prioritizing efforts on regulating flavored e-cigarettes and vaping products. While this definition was meant to be temporary, the government’s legal losses have made it more permanent.
Ongoing Disputes and Potential Consequences
Despite the existing definition, the appeals court ruled that more discussion is needed:
“The definition of ‘premium cigar’ in the final vacatur order will determine which products are exempted from the Tobacco Control Act (pending any further rulemaking), precisely the issue this rulemaking sought to determine… Given the centrality of this issue, we think the parties should have the opportunity to express their views before the district court determines—in effect—the permissible scope of the FDA’s existing rule.”
Edney’s latest filing signals that CRA and PCA prefer to maintain the status quo. He also noted that government officials informed him they do not plan to argue for a different definition in front of Mehta.
In contrast, attorney Brian T. Burgess filed a letter on behalf of the CAA, arguing that the appeals court’s order should stand and that Judge Mehta should be the one to finalize the definition. The CAA has previously proposed a definition that would include flavored cigars—an area of contention between the trade groups.
Edney argues that reopening the debate is unnecessary, as the government’s appeal did not challenge the definition, and the CAA did not file a cross-appeal. He also warns that leaving the issue open for further deliberation could create confusion for manufacturers and retailers.
Even if the court sides with Edney and reverses its prior decision, the issue is far from settled. Both Judge Mehta and the appeals court have acknowledged that the FDA retains the power to attempt regulation of exempt cigars at any time. However, such action would require a formal rulemaking process, including a public comment period lasting several months.
Given the current political climate and the regulatory priorities of the FDA, major changes appear unlikely until at least 2029. Nevertheless, the industry remains in a state of uncertainty, as any future administration could choose to revisit the exemption and reshape the landscape for premium cigars.
