CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
VAPOR TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff,

VAPOR STOCKROOM, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; ALEX M. AZAR, II, Secretary of Health and Human Services; STEPHEN HAHN, M.D., Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 20-5199
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington.
No. 5:19-cv-00330—Karen K. Caldwell, District Judge.
Argued: August 8, 2020
Decided and Filed: October 5, 2020
Before: ROGERS, KETHLEDGE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

PER CURIAM. Vapor Stockroom challenges the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) current enforcement guidance timetable for when e-cigarette manufacturers must file premarket tobacco applications to remain on the market. The challenged timetable was set by the District Court for the District of Maryland in an injunction issued by that court in separate litigation regarding the FDA’s 2017 enforcement guidance. Vapor Stockroom contends that the FDA’s remedial brief and an attached declaration submitted by an FDA official to the Maryland district court motivated that court to impose the challenged deadline for application submissions, which significantly accelerated the original FDA deadline. The company alleges that the FDA’s brief and declaration constituted a final agency action that violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). However, the Maryland court’s injunction was independent from the FDA’s brief and declaration. Vapor Stockroom therefore lacks Article III standing to obtain judicial review of the remedial brief and attached declaration, because the alleged injury is the result of the Maryland court’s independent action, not the challenged FDA filings. For similar reasons, the company’s request for injunctive relief against enforcement proceedings is without merit because the allegedly unauthorized court submissions do not form a plausible legal basis for an injunction against subsequent, independently caused FDA enforcement proceedings.