By Timothy s. Donahue
Top Takeaways:
- The Eighth Circuit is reviewing whether Iowa’s vape registry law is preempted by federal tobacco law.
- Judges questioned whether Iowa is duplicating FDA authorization rules by requiring a state directory.
- The outcome could affect similar state-level vape registry laws beyond Iowa.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit heard arguments last week on whether Iowa’s vapor products registry law (House File 2677) is preempted by federal tobacco law, as retailers, distributors and consumers seek to block the state from conditioning in-state sales on proof of federal compliance.
The law, enacted in May 2024, requires Iowa to create a directory of “HF2677-compliant” vapor products and to prohibit the sale of products not listed in the directory. Iowa’s Department of Revenue says enforcement of the directory has been on hold since a May 2, 2025 court order preliminarily enjoined the program while litigation continues.
Plaintiffs, led by Iowans for Alternatives to Smoking & Tobacco and several vapor businesses and consumers, sued the Iowa Department of Revenue in December 2024, arguing that the registry is preempted by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act because it effectively duplicates (and, in their view, leverages) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s premarket tobacco product application (PMTA)authorization framework for nicotine products.
A federal judge agreed and issued a preliminary injunction. At oral argument, the Eighth Circuit panel pressed both sides on how the Tobacco Control Act’s “savings” clause for certain state sales regulations interacts with the Act’s preemption provisions.
Represented by Deputy Solicitor General Patrick Valencia, Iowa argued that the state law is not merely enforcing federal standards because it imposes state-specific requirements, such as annual recertification and state penalties for noncompliance.
Judge James Loken questioned how much a state can add while still claiming to regulate sales rather than duplicating federal product-authorization rules, asking whether Iowa can “tack on any menial requirements” without triggering preemption.
Loken also said the case raises concerns about states replicating FDA regulation because they believe the agency isn’t doing enough. He told counsel, “It’s clear from the legislative history and common sense that Iowa has set out to duplicate FDA regulation … because it believes the FDA isn’t doing its job properly.”
The dispute is unfolding as multiple states adopt “directory” or registry-style laws for e-cigarettes and other vapor products—laws typically aimed at restricting sales of products without pending or granted FDA authorization—while manufacturers and retailers argue that the approach violates federal preemption. The appeal is captioned Iowans for Alternatives to Smoking & Tobacco, Inc., et al. v. Mosiman, No. 25-2087.
Separately, Iowa has argued that the plaintiffs lack standing because they seek to continue selling products the state characterizes as federally “unauthorized.” The state also argued that the district court’s injunction is overly broad—raising questions that have drawn increased scrutiny since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., which addressed when injunctions may extend beyond the parties necessary to provide complete relief.
