Posted: 01 Feb 2018 06:18 PM PST
here). Plaintiffs are pursuing the litigation simultaneously in several federal district courts – perhaps with the objective of accelerating the emergence of any potential split in the lower courts that would enhance the chances of obtaining Supreme Court review.Vape shops in several states have banded together in litigation challenging the constitutionality of FDA’s Deeming Rule (for background information on that regulation, see our prior posting
The complaints (see here, here, and here) allege that the Deeming Rule violates the Appointments Clause of Article II because it was issued by an FDA employee who lacked the authority to do so. According to Plaintiffs, “[b]ecause the issuance of a rule is final, because a rule binds the government and the regulated public, and because a rule cannot be easily reversed, only a principal officer of the United States—one who has been nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate—may exercise such authority” (emphasis added). Plaintiffs acknowledge that the Appointments Clause permits Congress to “vest the appointment of ‘inferior Officers… in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments’” (emphasis added). However, Plaintiffs argue that, even if an inferior officer can issue a rule such as the deeming regulation, “mere agency employees may not.”
The complaints further allege that the Deeming Rule violates the First Amendment by imposing “significant restrictions on truthful, non-misleading speech” in relation to modified-risk tobacco products. The use of a claim to the effect that a given tobacco product presents a lower risk of harm than a commercially marketed tobacco product must first be approved by FDA pursuant to a showing that the given product “will… significantly reduce harm and the risk of tobacco-related disease to individual tobacco users; and… benefit the health of the population as a whole taking into account both users of tobacco products and persons who do not currently use tobacco products.” Even a “reduced exposure” claim, such as a claim that vaping liquids do not have several carcinogens found in cigarettes, requires FDA’s preapproval. Plaintiffs contend that this “imposes an extraordinary prior restraint” on manufacturers and retailers, in that it’s not enough to show that the speech in question is truthful; in addition, one must show that the “truthful speech will create a net benefit.” The Deeming Rule thereby “impermissibly inverts the constitutionally required burden of proof, under which the government, not the speaker, must demonstrate that a restriction on speech directly and materially advances a valid interest asserted by the government” (emphasis in original).
Given the filing of similar complaints in multiple jurisdictions, we would not be surprised to see the government first try to get the cases consolidated (or at least coordinated). We look forward to seeing how the government eventually addresses Plaintiffs’ allegations.
While we’ve seen variations on the First Amendment argument with some frequency in a number of recent FDA cases, the Appointments Clause argument appears to be an issue of first impression in the FDA space. Significantly, the theory is not limited to the regulations at issue in the case. If successful, by logical extension it would implicate thousands of FDA regulations. The statute of limitations for suits against the government may limit the number of affirmative suits challenging regulations to those issued in the past 6 years (28 USC 2401), but nothing would prevent regulated entities from raising this argument as a defense in an FDA enforcement action based on a “defective” regulation. That said, it’s not clear how a “win” for the plaintiff in this case would play out. The Appointments Clause argument, if successful, would seem to only invalidate the issuance of the final rule (not, by way of contrast, the notice and comment process). Presumably, FDA could, without much difficulty, re-issue any affected final rules in short order—if it wanted to do so. The administration could only re-issue some regulations, however. In addition to any filings in this action, we’ll also be watching to see under whose authority FDA’s next final rule is issued.
viernes, 2 de febrero de 2018
FDA Law Blog - “Vape Shops Challenge Constitutionality of FDA’s Deeming Rule”
Vape Shops Challenge Constitutionality of FDA’s Deeming Rule
Publicado por salud equitativa en 4:47
Suscribirse a: Enviar comentarios (Atom)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario