With the SCOTUS pro-tobacco ruling, Elk Grove Mayor Bobbie Singh-Allen is in the winner's circle

In a decision that immediately reshapes how and where the tobacco industry fights federal rules, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday sided with R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. and a group of Texas convenience-store owners, saying they can challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s marketing denials in local courts instead of being funneled to Washington, D.C. 

Writing for a 7-2 majority in FDA v. R.J. Reynolds, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said retailers who “would sell a new tobacco product but for the FDA’s order” are “adversely affected” and therefore entitled to sue under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Dissenting Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson warned the change invites “judge-shopping” and could slow efforts to protect public health. 

If the FDA blocks a flavored cigarette or vape, neighborhood stores can now haul the agency into court in their own backyard. That means more lawsuits, filed in friendlier venues, each asking judges to second-guess FDA science on nicotine and youth addiction. 

Legal analysts expect an uptick in emergency orders that let disputed products stay on shelves while cases work through the system, weakening the FDA’s leverage. 

More litigation makes it harder for the FDA, which is being intentionally weakened by the Trump administration, to enforce nationwide bans on sweet or menthol vapes, items that account for a significant portion of convenience-store revenue. In California, where the statewide ban on flavored tobacco already faces court challenges, store owners say today’s ruling could keep high-margin vape cartridges available and drive extra foot traffic just as in-store sales are eclipsing fuel profits.

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids expressed disappointment with the ruling but noted a unanimous April 2 Supreme Court decision that ruled the FDA had followed the law in denying marketing applications for flavored e-cigarette products.

"This is a disappointing decision that gives e-cigarette manufacturers an open invitation to forum-shop for friendly courts in their relentless quest to lure and addict kids with flavored, nicotine-loaded products," their statement said. "However, it is important to note that this ruling does not concern the merits of the FDA’s decisions to deny marketing authorization for flavored e-cigarettes; it concerns only the proper judicial venue for challenging these decisions."

Last year, Elk Grove Mayor Bobbie Singh-Allen accepted $2,500 from R.J. Reynolds in September 2024 and another $2,000 from Philip Morris USA two months later. The mayor’s day job is President of the American Petroleum and Convenience Store Association, which describes itself as representing "the interests of gas station owners, tobacco store operators, liquor stores, and convenience store entrepreneurs across the USA." 

The Supreme Court has given tobacco retailers, and by extension, gas stations and convenience stores that rely on tobacco traffic, a powerful new tool to challenge federal restrictions. Public health advocates fear a patchwork of conflicting court orders, while the tobacco industry has an opening to push its products.  

Even though California has a flavored vape ban, tobacco companies have not given up - they litigate, bankrolled a failed referendum, and continue to lobby for loopholes, often with help from tobacco retailer-friendly politicians such as Singh-Allen. Whether any of those efforts will actually reverse the ban is uncertain, but the money and manpower behind them are very real and ongoing. 

Remember how the current Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade? From the perspective of tobacco advocates and politicians like Singh-Allen, the goal is to present the right case in the right court to challenge statewide bans in the Supreme Court in the hope of securing a ruling in favor of what Justice Kenataj Jackson Brown says is the court's bias for big business.

In Elk Grove, Mayor Singh-Allen’s tobacco-funded war chest and her lobbying portfolio put her, and the tobacco purveyors she represents, squarely in the winners’ column with this Supreme Court ruling.