By Timothy S. Donahue
Top Takeaways:
- No emergency block: The Ninth Circuit denied the emergency injunction request, meaning California’s UTL enforcement can proceed as planned.
- Appeal on a fast clock: The court expedited the appeal with briefs due Jan. 23 and Feb. 20, signaling a quicker path to a merits review.
- UTL rollout continues: California has published guidance and timelines around initial UTL inclusion (Oct. 9, 2025 submission cutoff for initial publication) while keeping applications open on a rolling basis.
A federal appeals court has denied an emergency motion to block California from enforcing its new Unflavored Tobacco List (UTL) requirements on “premium cigars,” but will expedite the appeal on an accelerated briefing schedule ahead of the rule’s rollout.
In the Jan. 1, 2026 update, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied emergency injunctive relief and set an expedited schedule: Jan. 23, 2026 for the plaintiffs’ opening brief and Feb. 20, 2026 for the state’s answering brief, with an optional reply due 21 days later.
The denial leaves in place California’s plan to begin enforcing the UTL framework effective Jan. 1, 2026, which ties legal sales in the state to whether a tobacco or nicotine product is on the Attorney General’s list.
The appeal stems from Rocky Patel Premium Cigars Inc. et al. v. Bonta, brought by cigar manufacturers and trade groups seeking to prevent California from applying the UTL regime to “premium cigars.” The plaintiffs filed their Ninth Circuit appeal on Dec. 26 and sought emergency injunctive relief given the Jan. 1 effective date.
The lawsuit was filed in early October in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and assigned to Judge Monica Ramírez Almadani, who denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction in late December—setting up the appeal now being fast-tracked, as reported by Halfwheel.
California created the UTL as an enforcement mechanism for its 2020 flavored tobacco sales ban by establishing a list of products deemed “unflavored” and therefore eligible for sale in the state. The Attorney General’s office has said manufacturers must submit completed applications by Oct. 9, 2025, to be considered for the initial publication of the list, while registration can continue on a rolling basis afterward.
In connection with the litigation, the state has argued that the seven cigar-company plaintiffs submitted “almost 1,000” products for inclusion on the initial UTL, all of which were approved. It has also told the court that retailers may hold (“mothball”) inventory while later-filed applications are processed or dispose of unlisted products (including returning or selling them out of state).
According to case listings and reporting, the plaintiffs include member companies associated with the Cigar Rights of America (CRA), the CRA itself, and the Premium Cigar Association (PCA), as well as cigar manufacturers such as Arturo Fuente, Ashton, La Flor Dominicana, Oliva, My Father, Padrón, and Rocky Patel.
They contend that the UTL framework violates federal law and imposes substantial compliance burdens. Under California’s regulations, manufacturers must submit documentation and product samples, provide certifications related to the flavored tobacco restrictions, and pay per-product fees, with separate applications often required for different “brand styles” or variants.
A notable wrinkle in the case has been the parties’ differing approaches to defining “premium cigars,” including disputes over how California’s criteria interact with definitions used in federal tobacco regulation and prior litigation.
