Key points:

• The law would have required e-cigarette products sold in Iowa to have FDA authorization or pending applications, potentially eliminating over 99% of products on the market.​
• Chief U.S. District Judge Stephanie Rose found the law violates the Supremacy Clause by allowing state enforcement of federal regulations.​
• The ruling prevents the law’s implementation, except for a provision requiring manufacturers to have in-state registered agents.

​A federal judge has halted Iowa’s new e-cigarette law, ruling it unlawfully encroaches on federal regulatory authority.​ Chief U.S. District Judge Stephanie Rose found the law violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution by conflicting with the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

That law reserves for the federal government the right to regulate the manufacture and safety of tobacco and related products, although it permits states to impose their own regulations on their sale.

Background:

House File 2677, signed into law by Governor Kim Reynolds in May 2024, aimed to create a “vapor products directory” listing permissible e-cigarette products. Only products with U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorization or those marketed before August 2016 with pending FDA applications would be allowed. Retailers selling non-listed products faced fines and potential permit revocation.​

Opponents, including Iowans for Alternatives to Smoking & Tobacco (IFAST) and several local vape retailers, argued the law would devastate small businesses and limit consumer access to smoking alternatives. Corey Halfhill, owner of Central Iowa Vapors, stated the law would force him to close his 15 stores, impacting 80 employees.

Legal Challenge:

In December 2024, a coalition of manufacturers and retailers sued the state, claiming the law violated the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause by allowing Iowa to enforce federal regulations. Judge Rose agreed, stating, “Iowa’s acknowledged purpose in enacting House File 2677 — to address ‘federal non-enforcement’ — precisely illustrates why Congress vested enforcement authority exclusively with the federal government.”​

The judge also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the law unfairly favored tobacco-derived nicotine products over synthetic ones. She noted the state could rationally conclude that non-tobacco-based products present unique public health risks.​

Implications:

The ruling prevents the law’s implementation, except for a provision requiring manufacturers to have in-state registered agents. While the court sided with the plaintiffs on the issue of federal overreach, it upheld the state’s authority to regulate sales within its borders.​

This decision is a significant win for small vaping businesses and harm reduction advocates, highlighting the ongoing tension between state regulations and federal authority in the vaping industry.