A trade group representing gas stations and convenience stores has filed a federal lawsuit against the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board, challenging a new state law that restricts the sale of e-cigarettes. The lawsuit claims the legislation is unconstitutional and unlawfully cedes regulatory authority to the ABC Board.

The Petroleum & Convenience Marketers of Alabama (P&CMA) filed the complaint Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, arguing that the state law improperly infringes on federal authority and violates the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

At the heart of the lawsuit is a new Alabama law that limits the retail sale of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) to “specialty retailers,” effectively barring most convenience stores and gas stations from selling them.

P&CMA alleges that by implementing these restrictions, Alabama has unlawfully delegated broad regulatory powers to the ABC Board—powers the group says belong solely to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration under the federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.

“The FDA has exclusive authority to set good manufacturing standards and determine the scope of allowable e-cigarette sales in the U.S.,” the group states in the lawsuit.

The trade association further argues that Alabama’s new law creates an “unconstitutional and anti-competitive scheme” that disadvantages small retailers by stripping them of a legal product category they previously relied upon for revenue.

Regulatory Conflict and Legal Grounds
The lawsuit invokes the legal doctrine of federal preemption, which bars states from enacting laws that conflict with federal statutes or interfere with the execution of federal regulatory frameworks. Since 2016, e-cigarettes and other vaping products have been regulated as tobacco products under the authority of the FDA.

“Federal law provides a comprehensive framework for regulating the manufacture, marketing, and sale of tobacco products, including e-cigarettes,” P&CMA’s legal counsel wrote in the filing. “Alabama’s law unlawfully seeks to regulate in the same space, creating direct conflicts and undermining the uniformity intended by Congress.”

While the state claims the new law is intended to address youth vaping and protect public health, P&CMA contends the law’s real-world effect is to favor certain businesses over others without advancing its stated goals.

Restrictive Retail Rules
Under the new law, only licensed specialty vape shops are permitted to sell many flavored and open-system vaping products. This change has had immediate consequences for thousands of Alabama retailers—particularly small, independently owned gas stations and corner stores that have stocked popular vape brands as part of their offerings.

“Our members are facing a devastating loss of business,” said Thomas Bates, president of P&CMA. “They have complied with federal rules, followed age-verification protocols, and still they’re being told they can’t sell products that remain legal under federal law. That’s not fair and it’s not constitutional.”

Critics of the law say it amounts to de facto prohibition for some retailers, while carving out exceptions for others. P&CMA’s lawsuit suggests the law not only violates federal supremacy but also potentially runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause by creating burdensome restrictions on lawful interstate commerce.

ABC Board Role in Question
The lawsuit also challenges the authority granted to the Alabama ABC Board, traditionally responsible for regulating alcohol, to now oversee and enforce policies related to nicotine products.

P&CMA alleges that this delegation of power is both improper and excessive, lacking the necessary legislative guidelines and checks required by the Alabama Constitution and longstanding legal precedent.

“This unprecedented expansion of the ABC Board’s authority is arbitrary and capricious,” the complaint states. “The Board was never intended to serve as a general regulator for nicotine products and lacks the expertise and procedural safeguards to do so.”

What’s Next?
The case could have significant implications for Alabama’s approach to regulating nicotine products, as well as for broader state-level efforts across the U.S. to impose retail restrictions on vape products amid federal inaction or delay.

If the court agrees with P&CMA’s argument, Alabama may be forced to roll back or revise its law—potentially opening the door for similar lawsuits in other states with restrictive e-cigarette laws.

As of Wednesday, the ABC Board had not publicly commented on the litigation.

For now, P&CMA is seeking a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the law while the case proceeds, warning that continued enforcement could cause “irreparable harm” to retailers across the state.

“Our members are small business owners. Many operate on razor-thin margins,” Bates said. “This law, if allowed to stand, could put some of them out of business.”