Donate
Legal Document

U.S. State Cases

Last updated July 13, 2026
Related Policy Solutions
Locations

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids has an active litigation program, participating in tobacco control cases in state and federal courts. In state courts, the Campaign generally appears as amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) defending state and local tobacco control measures against industry legal attack. These amicus briefs are typically joined by local, state, and national medical, public health, and community organizations.

Restrictions on Flavored Tobacco Products

Amicus Briefs Filed by Tobacco-Free Kids

Slis et al v. Michigan et al. and A Clean Cigarette Corporation v. Michigan et al. 

Michigan Court of Appeals, 2020
Case Details: Nos. 351211, 351212, 956 N.W.2d 569, 332 Mich. App. 312 (Mich. Ct. App. 2020)

Key Documents: 

In an effort to combat the youth vaping crisis, in late 2019, the Michigan Department of Health promulgated emergency rules prohibiting the sale of flavored e-cigarettes. E-cigarette retailers sued to challenge the rules. Tobacco-Free Kids, joined by the Michigan Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, filed six amicus briefs, in three different Michigan courts, opposing a preliminary injunction against the emergency rule and then seeking to overturn the injunction once it was issued. Ultimately, a Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s grant of a preliminary injunction preventing the State from enforcing the rules. The Court held that Plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claim that the State was required to promulgate the rules through its normal processes, not its emergency process. The State later dropped its plans to permanently adopt these rules.

Vapor Technology Association et al. v. Cuomo et al. 

New York Supreme Court, 2020 
Case Details: No. 906514-19, 118 N.Y.S. 3d 397, 66 Misc. 3d 800 (Supp. Ct. N.Y. 2020)

Key Documents: 

In New York, a state trial court enjoined an emergency rule prohibiting the manufacture, sale, and possession of most flavored e-liquids as beyond the authority of the State Health Department. In March 2020, Tobacco-Free Kids filed an amicus brief, with local, state and national public health groups, supporting reversal of the trial court ruling. However, while briefing of the appeal was continuing, New York State passed legislation in April banning the sale of flavored vaping products, thus accomplishing the public health objectives of the emergency rule. Consequently, the State Department of Health allowed the emergency rule to expire, the lawsuit was rendered moot, and the parties agreed to a dismissal.

Vapor Technology Association et al. v. Washington State Board of Health et al. 

Washington Court of Appeals, 2020
Case Details: No. 19-2-05196 (Thurston County), No. 54358-3-II (Wash. Ct. App.)

Key Documents: 

In Washington State, a state trial court denied a preliminary injunction against the Washington Board of Health’s rule prohibiting the sale of flavored e-cigarette products. When that decision went up on appeal, Tobacco-Free Kids filed an amicus brief supporting the rule as within the authority of the State Board of Health. However, the emergency rule expired before the Court of Appeals could rule. 

Rocky Mountain Smoke Free Alliance v. City of Denver (Denver County District Court 2026).

Washington Court of Appeals, 2020
Case Details: No. 2026CV30270 

Key Documents: 

After Denver voters overwhelmingly voted to uphold the city’s retail sales ban of flavored tobacco products, an association of Colorado vaping interests sued alleging that the retail sales ban violates the United States Constitution’s Commerce Clause, Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and First Amendment. Tobacco-Free Kids, along with 26 other national and state organizations, filed an amicus brief in support of the City of Denver’s motion to dismiss. 

Master Settlement Agreement (MSA)

Amicus Briefs Filed by Tobacco-Free Kids

Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Fund v. Stitt, et al.

Oklahoma Supreme Court, 2025 
Case Details: No. MA-123238

Key Documents: 

The 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) resolved dozens of lawsuits brought by state attorneys’ general to recover billions of dollars of health care costs from the country’s largest tobacco companies. Uniquely, Oklahomans voted to amend their state constitution to create the Oklahoma Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust (TSET) and devote the Oklahoma’s portion of MSA proceeds toward improving public health in perpetuity. Under the state constitution, seven specified state officials each appoint one of TSET’s directors, and the seven directors serve seven-year staggered terms. In 2025, the Oklahoma Legislature enacted legislation providing that directors would serve at the will of their appointing authority. TSET filed an action in the Oklahoma Supreme Court to declare the legislation unconstitutional and to prevent it from becoming effective. Tobacco-Free Kids, along with seven state and national organizations, filed an amicus brief in support of TSET to help protect TSET’s independence from political forces and to ensure its ability to focus its resources on programs that curb tobacco use. The Oklahoma Supreme Court struck down the law, holding that it violated the state constitutional requirements governing TSET appointments. 

State Taxes on Tobacco Products

Amicus Briefs Filed by Tobacco-Free Kids

Naifeh et al. v. Oklahoma 

Oklahoma Supreme Court, 2017
Case details: No. 116102, 2017 OK 63, 400 P.3d 759 (2017)

Key documents: 

The State of Oklahoma passed legislation significantly raising fees levied on cigarettes. The law was immediately challenged in a lawsuit brought by cigarette companies, alleging that the legislation was a “bill for raising revenue,” requiring a super-majority vote in the legislature under the Oklahoma Constitution. The State argued that the bill was passed primarily as a public health measure to raise the price of cigarettes and thus discourage consumption, not as a revenue-raising measure. Tobacco-Free Kids and other public health groups filed an amicus brief supporting the State’s position. Our brief argued that the public health community was the major proponent of the bill, advocating it as a public health measure. However, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the bill was a revenue-raising measure that had not received the constitutionally mandated super-majority, and thus struck down the legislation.      

Amicus Briefs Filed by Tobacco-Free Kids

Kelly Hancock, Acting Comptroller v. RJR Vapor Co.

Texas Supreme Court, 2025
Case details: No. 24-0052

Key documents: 

Tobacco-Free Kids, along with nine state and local organizations, filed an amicus brief in the Texas Supreme Court supporting the Comptroller of Public Accounts’ appeal of a lower court decision finding that nicotine pouches are not “tobacco products” within the meaning of the state’s tax code. As the tax code’s definition is cross-referenced by Texas’s health and safety code, it also applies to many of the state’s health and safety statutes, as well. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court, holding that nicotine pouches are, in fact, “tobacco products.”

Preemption

Dwagfys Mfg., Inc. et al. v. Topeka 

Kansas Supreme Court, 2018
Case details: No. 119,269, 309 Kan. 1336, 443 P.3d 1052 (2019)

Key documents: 

Tobacco-Free Kids filed an amicus brief in the Kansas Supreme Court supporting Topeka’s appeal of a lower court ruling striking down the City’s ordinance that raised the minimum age for sale of tobacco products from 18 to 21. The lower court had held that the local ordinance was preempted by state law that set the minimum age at 18, despite a State Attorney General opinion that state law had no preemptive effect. Our brief, filed with the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce and eighteen national, state and local public health and medical organizations, presented the evidence of the public health importance of allowing local jurisdictions to raise the minimum age as a way of reducing youth addiction to tobacco products. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the lower court, concluding that state law does not preempt the Topeka minimum sales age ordinance.

RPF Oil Co. v. Genesee County et al. 

Michigan Court of Appeals, 2019
Case details: No. 344735, 17-109107-CZ, 330 Mich. App. 533 (2019)

Key documents: 

Tobacco-Free Kids filed amicus briefs in a Michigan trial court and Michigan Court of Appeals supporting a Genesee County Health Department regulation that would prohibit the sale of tobacco to persons under the age of 21 (Tobacco 21 regulation). The lawsuit was brought by a Plaintiff that owned and operated convenience stores in Genesee County, arguing that the Tobacco 21 regulation was preempted by Michigan’s Age of Majority Act (AMA). Our brief, joined by a broad coalition of public health groups, emphasized the public health importance of raising the sales age to 21. The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 that the regulation raising the age for tobacco sales to 21 was preempted by the AMA.

Schwartz et al. v. Washington County 

Oregon Supreme Court, 2023
Case details: A179834 
Circuit Court case details: 22CV04386

Key documents: 

Tobacco-Free Kids, joined by 13 local, state, and national public health, medical and community groups, filed an amicus brief in the Oregon Court of Appeals urging the Court to reverse a circuit court decision that struck down Washington County’s flavored tobacco law as being preempted by the State’s tobacco retail licensing law. Our brief argued that the lower court decision was legally flawed and also emphasized the enormous public health benefits, particularly to youth, of the County’s flavored tobacco law. In May 2024, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court decision and concluded that the County’s flavored tobacco law was not preempted by state law. On May 7, 2026, a unanimous Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals ruling and upheld Multnomah County’s flavored tobacco law. Tobacco-Free Kids, joined by partners, filed an amicus brief in the Oregon Supreme Court urging the Court to uphold the Court of Appeals decision.

21+ Tobacco and Vapor Retail Association of Oregon et al. v. Multnomah County

Oregon Court of Appeals, 2023
Case details: No. 23CV03801

Key documents:

Plaintiffs, tobacco and vape retailers and an industry trade association, challenged a Multnomah County law prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco products on the grounds that it is preempted by the state’s tobacco retail licensing law. Over the objections of the plaintiffs, the Court granted our motion to file an amicus brief in support of the County’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Our brief, joined by 12 other national, state, and local public health, medical, and community organizations, asserted that the County’s flavored tobacco law was consistent with – and not preempted by – state law, and detailed the public health benefits that the County’s law would provide to its residents. In September 2023, the Circuit Court upheld Multnomah County’s flavored tobacco law, concluding that it was not preempted by state law. Plaintiffs appealed that decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals. Tobacco-Free Kids and 16 partner organizations also filed an amicus brief supporting the County’s law in the Court of Appeals. On April 9, 2025, the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the Multnomah County ordinance. Plaintiffs have requested the Oregon Supreme Court review the case. 

Six Brothers, Inc. d/b/a Brookline Sunoco v. Town of Brookline 

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2023
Case details: SJC-13434

Key documents: 

Tobacco retailers challenged an innovative Brookline by-law that prohibits the sale of all tobacco products to anyone born after January 1, 2000 (sometimes referred to as a “tobacco-free generation law”), contending that it was preempted by the Massachusetts state law that raised the minimum sales age for tobacco products from 18 to 21, and that it violated the equal protection clause of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Tobacco-Free Kids, joined by 11 national, state, and local public health, medical, and community organizations, filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (the highest court in the state) urging the court to affirm a lower court ruling upholding the Brookline by-law. In addition to supporting the lower court ruling that the state law was not intended to preempt local tobacco control laws, our amicus brief emphasized the importance of preserving local authority to experiment with novel and more far-reaching tobacco restrictions, and documented examples of impactful tobacco control laws that originated at the local level and which were later adopted by states and/or the federal government. On March 8, 2024, the Supreme Judicial Court unanimously upheld the Brookline law and rejected the retailers’ preemption and equal protection arguments.

City of Columbus et al. v. Ohio 

Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024
Case details: No.24CV002865

Key documents: 

The City of Columbus and 13 other Ohio municipalities challenged a sweeping state tobacco preemption law that would eliminate all existing and future local regulations of tobacco products, including Columbus’s prohibition on the sale of flavored tobacco products. The cities alleged that the state preemption law violated their state constitutional right to exercise home rule authority, and asked the court for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to block implementation of the state law, which was set to take effect on April 23, 2024. On April 19, 2024, a Franklin County trial court issued a temporary restraining order that blocks the State from enforcing its preemption law against the cities that are parties to the lawsuit, meaning that these cities can continue to enforce their local tobacco laws, including Columbus’s flavored tobacco ban. Tobacco-Free Kids and eleven of our partners filed an amicus brief in support of the cities’ motion to enjoin implementation of the state law, emphasizing the public health benefits that Columbus’s flavored tobacco ordinance provides to local residents. In May 2024, the trial court ruled in the cities’ favor on the merits, finding that the state preemption law was unconstitutional and granting a permanent injunction against enforcement of the law. The state appealed the merits decision to the Tenth District Court of Appeals. Tobacco-free Kids and 15 of our state and national partners filed an amicus brief in the court of appeals, which focused on the public health benefits of Columbus’s flavored tobacco ordinance and other local tobacco control laws. On July 8, 2025, the Tenth District affirmed the trial court's ruling. The Ohio Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. Tobacco-Free Kids and our partners filed an amicus brief in support of the cities in the Supreme Court. 

State of Ohio ex rel. Attorney General Dave Yost v. Central Tobacco and Stuff, Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court, 2026
Case details: No. 2025-1510

Key documents: 

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost sued e-cigarette retailers for allegedly violating the Ohio’s consumer protection law by selling flavored e-cigarettes that are illegal under federal law—because they have not been authorized by the FDA—yet were represented as being legal for sale in the U.S. The Ohio Supreme Court agreed to hear the case following a decision by an Ohio court of appeals that held that the State's action was preempted by federal law. Tobacco-Free Kids, joined by public health partners and the City of Columbus, filed two amicus briefs with the Supreme Court in this case—one in support of the State's request for the Court to hear the case and the other on the merits. Our briefs argued that the appellate court’s ruling was legally flawed because it failed to account for the federal Tobacco Control Act's broad preservation of state and local authority or the Act's core objective of protecting youth from the harms of tobacco use. The case remains pending at the State Supreme Court.