Fifth Circuit Court Opinion on Mississippi Vapor Law

United Sta tes Court of Ap peals f or the Fifth Circuit ________ ____ _ No. 25 - 60694 consolid ated w ith No. 26 - 60013 ________ ____ _ Vapor Technology Asso ciation; MS Small VTC Businesses Asso ciation Corporation, doing business as MS Small Busin ess es A llianc e; H ema Moni ca, L.L.C.; T he Smokey Guys, I ncorporated; Byram Vape Empire, Incorporated; M S Vapors, L.L.C.; Vap e Empire, Incorp orat ed; Sm oke Cit y Luce dale, L.L. C.; Rev ive Luced al e, L. L.C.; Reviv e H urle y, L.L. C.; TJ P atel, L. L.C.; NUP 2, L.L. C., Plaint iffs — Appella nts, versus Chris Graham, Mis siss ippi Co mmissioner of Revenue, Defendant — Appellee. ________ ____ ___ _____ _______ ___ __ Appea l s from the Unite d State s District Co urt for the Southe rn District o f Mississip pi USDC N o. 1:2 5 - CV - 336 ________ ____ ___ _____ _______ ___ __ PUBLISHED O RD ER Befor e Stewart, Willett, and Wils on, Cir cuit Judges. United S tates Court of A ppeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 1 1, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

Don R. Willett, Ci rcuit Judge: A grou p of retaile rs, distrib utors, an d trad e associatio ns in th e electro nic nicoti ne indus try sued t o enjoi n enfo rcement of Mississippi House Bill 916. But Article III standing is a prereq uisite to our jurisd iction — and the challen gers have not established it h ere. W e t her efore DENY the ir motion for an in junction pendin g appeal. I In Marc h 2025, Mis siss ippi Gov ernor Tat e Reev es signe d H.B. 916 into law. Th e statute requi res the Sta te’s C ommissi oner of R eve nue to maintain a director y listin g onl y FDA - approved ele ctronic nicotine devices. 1 Product s not included in the S tate’s dir ectory gene rally may not be sold a t retail in Missis sippi, 2 and m anufacture rs must ce rtify that th eir devices have recei ved FDA approv al. 3 Violation s carry both civil an d criminal penalties. 4 Dissatisf ied with the new law, two in dustry trade association s, one distributo r, and n ine re tailers sued the Commission er in fe deral co urt. 5 They alleged that H.B. 916 violates th eir con stitutio nal rights, interfe res with the FDA ’s regulatio n of e lectron ic nicotine de vices, and is pree mpted by the Food, D rug, and Cosmetic A ct, 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. The day after filing 1 M ISS. C ODE. A NN. §§ 75 - 102 - 1, 75 - 102 - 2. 2 See id. § 75 - 102 - 2(10)(a). 3 See i d. § 75 - 102 - 2(1) – (3). 4 See i d. § 75 - 102 - 2(11)(a). 5 The Plaintiffs – Ap pella nts are V apor T echn ology A ssociation; MS Small VTC Bu s in e ss es Association Corporation; Hema Monic a, LLC; The Smokey Guys Inc.; Byram V a pe Emp ir e, Inc.; MS V apo rs, LL C; V ape Empire, Inc.; Smoke City L uc edale, LLC; Reviv e Luce d al e, L LC; Revive Hurley, LLC; TJ Pate l, LLC; and NUP 2 LLC.

No. 25 - 60694 c/w No. 26 - 60013 3 suit, Plaintiff s moved for a te mporary re straining o rder and a prelimin ary injuncti on to bar enf orc ement of the statu te. After holdi ng a hear ing on the emerg ency m otions, t he distr ict cour t order ed focused bri ef in g on Article III s tandi ng — a threshold j urisdictiona l issue. 6 Once briefing co nclude d, the cou rt de nied inj unctive re lief an d dismisse d the action, co ncludin g that Pla intiff s had failed to ide ntify a legally cognizable injury suf ficient to es tablish standing. 7 Plaintiff s prom ptly appealed. 8 On app eal, Plaintif fs ag ain seek to enjoin enf orcem ent of H.B. 916 pending resolut ion of the a ppeal. 9 Because standing is a pre requ isite to an y such r eli ef, we ad dr ess it first. II We consid er four fa ctors when de cid ing whether to gr ant an inju nction pend ing appeal. The movant must show “(1) a s trong l ikeli hood of succe ss on the mer its; (2) irre parable injury in th e absence o f an injunction; (3) that th e balance of h ardships weighs in their favo r if injunctive relie f is granted; and (4) that the public inte rest favors su ch relie f.” 10 6 See U.S. C ONST. ar t. III, § 2 (res tricting fed eral ju dicia l power to the resolut ion of “Cases ” an d “Con tro ve rsies ”); United States v. T exas, 599 U.S. 6 70, 675 (202 3) (“[A ] case or controversy can exi st only if a plaintiff h as standing to sue. ”). 7 See No. 1:25 - cv - 336, 20 25 WL 3731 013, at *4 – 5 (Dec. 1 5, 2025). 8 See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 9 See F ED. R. A PP. P. 8(a)(2) (author izing inj unc tive relief p endin g appeal). 10 Whole W oman ’ s Heal th v. Jacks on, 13 F.4th 434, 441 (5t h Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (c iting F ED. R. A PP. P. 8(a)(2)(A) (i)). Plaintiffs suggest that we em ploy the m ore le nient tes t ou tlined in W i l d m o n v. Ber wick Universal Pictur es, 983 F.2d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1992). Under that test, the movant

No. 25 - 60694 c/w No. 26 - 60013 4 Here, the first facto r — likeliho od of success on the me rits — is dispos itive. B ecause standing is a pre requisite to succ ess on the me rits, Plaintiff s ’ failu re to d emonstr ate it fore closes i njunctive re lief. 11 III No stand ing mean s n o likelih ood o f success on the me rits. 12 A Article III standing requires: (1) an “ injury in fact ”—“ an inva sion of a legally pr otecte d inter est” that is “concre te and particularize d” and “actual or im minent, not co njectural or h ypothetical”; (2) a causal connect ion sho wing the injury is “fairly tr aceable” to the ch allenged “need o nly present a su bstantial c ase on the m erits wh en a s erious legal q uestion is involved and s how that the ba lanc e of eq uities we ighs he avily in fav or of gra nting the s tay. ” Id. (q uoting R uiz v. Estelle, 650 F.2d 555, 565 (5th Cir. Uni t A June 1981)). But the W ildmon stan dard applies wh en a p arty moves to stay an inju nction that th e distr ict c our t granted, not when — as here, a par ty asks a n appellate court to issue inj unctive relief the d istric t cour t has d e nie d. Se e, e.g., id. at 22 – 23; Campaign for S. E quali ty v. Br yant, 773 F.3d 55, 57 (5th C ir. 2014). T his cas e therefor e falls under Whole W oman ’s Heal th, 13 F. 4th at 441. And u n d er either s tanda rd, the m otion fails for th e sa me reason: P laintiffs lack stan ding. 11 Cf. N AA CP v. Tindel l, 95 F.4th 212, 21 8 (5th Cir. 2024) (pe r curiam) (denying inju nction pen ding appe al for lack of sta ndin g). 12 Without s tand ing, a p laintiff c annot obta in inju nctive re lief becaus e the cou rt cannot r each the me rits — and necessa rily, the pla intiff can not sh ow likely s ucc ess on the merits. See Tindell, 95 F.4th at 216 – 18. Ou r siste r cou rts agree. See Am. Fed ’n of Teachers v. Bessent, 152 F.4th 162, 174 (4th Cir. 20 25) (“On it s own, the lac k of stand ing means Plaintif fs ca nnot s how they ar e ultima tely likely to su cceed o n the merits.”); Moms for Liberty – W ilson Cnty. v. Wilson Cnty. Bd of Ed uc., 155 F.4th 499, 512 (6th C ir. 2025) (“[B] y failing to a deq uate ly demonstr ate sta ndin g, Plain tiffs n ecessar ily ca nnot establis h a likeliho od of s ucc ess on th e merits [.] ” (quo tation om itted)); Obama v. Klaym an, 800 F.3d 559, 5 65 (D.C. Cir. 201 5) (“T he ‘af firmat ive bur den of sho wing a like lihoo d of succe ss on the mer its. . . necess arily include s a likelihood of the c ourt’ s reaching th e merits, whic h in turn d epends on a like lihoo d tha t plain tiff ha s s tandin g.’” (em phas is in orig ina l) (qu otation omitted)).

No. 25 - 60694 c/w No. 26 - 60013 5 conduct; a nd (3) redres sability — th at the inju ry will “ likely ” be “ redre ssed by a favor able de cision. ” 13 B Here, Plaintiffs fai l to ide ntify an injury in fact. Althoug h the y arg ued financial in jury in the district cour t, Plaintiff s d o not pres s that the ory o n appeal an d have th erefore for feited it. 14 On appe al, Plaintiffs inste ad asser t that their legally pro tected interest “is no t in comm itting a crime, but in e nforcing the Co nstitution.” They contend that H.B. 916 contravenes fe deral law that preempts sta te enforc ement of FDA regulations. An d because preemption d octrine derive s from the Suprem acy Clause, Plaintiffs ch aracte rize the allege d injury as constitu tional. 15 True, constitu tional inj uries can create standing. 16 But ev en constitu tional inj uries must be con crete and particu larized — mor e, t hey must be long t o the plaintiff, n ot the pub lic at large. 17 As the Supr em e Cour t ha s repeat edly empha siz ed, plaintiffs may not “e stablish standing s imply by 13 Se e Lujan v. Def enders of W ild life, 504 U.S. 5 55, 560 – 61 (1992) (cl eaned up); Tindell, 95 F.4th at 216 (“[A ]n injunc tion is alwa ys improper if the distric t court lac k[s ] jurisd iction. ” (qu otation omitted)). 14 E.T. v. P a x to n, 41 F.4th 709, 7 17 (5 th Cir. 2022) (“ [A ] r gum ents in favor o f jurisd iction c an b e forfeited. ”). 15 21 U.S.C. § 337(a) (“[A]ll such p roceedin gs for the e nforceme nt, or to restrain violations, of this chapter shall b e by and in the nam e of the United States. ”). See U. S. C ONST. art. VI, cl. 2. 16 S ee Lutostanski v. Brown, 88 F.4th 582, 586 (5th C ir. 2023). 17 S ee Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 – 61.

No. 25 - 60694 c/w No. 26 - 60013 6 claiming an intere st in go vernmental observance of the Constitutio n.” 18 Instead, they must alleg e “a particu lar and concre te injur y” to a “ personal constitu tional righ t.” 19 Plai ntiffs do not do so her e. Rather than ident ify a particularize d constitu tional inj ury of their own, they asse rt a gene ralized gr ievanc e: th at Mississipp i has e nacted and se eks to e nforc e a statu te alleged ly incon sistent with fe d eral law. But a gene ralized in terest in con stitutional g overn ance, standin g alone, is insufficie nt to con fer standing. Article III bars fede ral courts from resolv ing su ch abstract dis putes. C The f ederal re gulatory b ackdrop co nfirms the absence of any individu alized inj ury. Feder al law prohib its manuf acturing o r selling e lectronic nicotine device s that the FDA has not a pproved. Under the Fa mily S moking Preventi on and T obac co Cont rol Act (TCA), t he FDA regulates “cigarette s, cigarette to bacco, ro ll - your - o wn - tobacco, an d smokeless tobacco, ” as well as “any o ther to bacco pro ducts that the Secre tary by regulatio n deem s to be subje ct to” the TCA. 20 In 201 6, t he FDA ext ended that au thority to all ele ctronic nicotine delivery s ystem s, includin g those 18 S ee V alley F orge Christian Coll. v. A m s. Unite d for S epar ation of Church an d State, 454 U.S. 464, 482 (1982) (quotation omitted). 19 See i d. at 482; D e e p S. C tr. f or Env ’ t Justice v. EP A, 138 F.4th 3 10, 317 (5th C ir. 2025) (“In ca ses brought by organ izational pla intiffs, it is of p ar ticu lar importan ce that ‘ stand ing is not m easu red by the intensity of the li tiga nt ’ s interest or the fer vor of his advocacy. ’ ” (quotation omitted)). 20 21 U.S.C. § 387a(b).

No. 25 - 60694 c/w No. 26 - 60013 7 contain ing synth etic nicotine. 21 The TCA furthe r require s that tobacco produ cts not on the m arket as of Fe bruary 15, 2007, re ceive FDA author ization be fore en tering co mmerce — confirmin g that electron ic nicotin e devices q ualify as “tobacco pro ducts” subje ct to fede ral approval. 22 That federa l scheme u nder scores why Plaintif fs’ asser ted inj ury rests not on a ny individ ualized h arm, but on a generalized disagree ment with Mississipp i’s en forcemen t choice s. Plaintiffs insist that they need onl y show an inte rest “arguably within the z one of int eres t s to be pro tected or regulated by the statute. ” 23 But t hat doctrin e, where applicab le, o perate s as a pruden tial limita tion o n statutory causes of actio n; it do es no t displ ace the Constitu tion’s irreducible require ment of an in jury that is “con crete,” “particular ized,” and “ actual or im minen t.” 24 IV Becau se Plaintiffs assert onl y a gene ralized theo r y of constitu tional injury — on e that Supr eme Court p reced ent s qu arel y forec los es 25 — we hold 21 Se e Deem ing T obacco Products to be Subject to t he F ederal F ood, Drug, and Cosmetic A ct, 81 F ed. Reg. 28,9 7 4, 29, 028 (May 10, 2 0 16) (codified at 21 C.F.R. §§ 1100, 1140, 1143); see al s o 21 U.S.C. § 321 (rr) (1) – (2) (“ The ter m ‘t obac co pro duct ’ means any produ ct. . . containing n icotin e from a ny source [.] ”). 22 Se e 21 U.S.C. § 387j(a)(1)(a) – (a)(2)(A); see a l so 21 C.F.R. § 1114.5 (“ A new tobacco produc t may not be introduc ed or d elivered for introduction into interstate commerc e und er this p art u ntil [th e ] FDA has issue d a mark eting gr ant ed order f or the product. ”). 23 Se e Ass ’ n of Data Processing S er v. Orgs. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153 (19 70). 24 Se e Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 – 61; se e also Lexmark In t ’ l, Inc. v. Stat ic Control Compon ent s, I nc., 572 U.S. 118, 127 (“ Wh ether a pla intiff comes within the zone of interests is an issue that requires us to determine, usin g traditional tools of statutory interpretation, whether a legis latively con ferred cause of action enc ompasses a par ticula r plaintiff ’s claim. ” (clea ned up)). 25 S ee V alley F orge, 454 U.S. at 482.

No. 25 - 60694 c/w No. 26 - 60013 8 that the y lack Article III standing and thus cannot succeed on the merits. 26 Accord ingly, w e d ecli ne to enjoin enfor cem ent of H.B. 916 and DEN Y the motion for an injun ction pendin g appeal. 26 See T i nd el l, 95 F.4th at 21 8 (denying injunc tion pend ing appea l for lack of stan ding).