Col. Alan Spencer, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; Melissa Morrissette, in her official capacity as a member of the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; John Knight, in his official capacity as a member of the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; Hal Taylor, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency; Chris Inabinett, in his official capacity as Director of the State Bureau of Investigation; and Mary Martin Mitchell, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Revenue v. Vapor Technology Association and Southside Vape, LLC, SC-2025-0800

The Alabama Act, effective June 1, 2025, regulates the sale of ENDS and e-liquids in Alabama. 1
Vapor Technology Association and Southside Vape sued state officials in Montgomery Circuit Court seeking a TRO and preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Act. 2
The trial court entered a TRO, later denied a preliminary injunction, and extended the TRO pending appeal. 3
The State appealed the TRO as to standing, and the plaintiffs cross-appealed the denial of a preliminary injunction. 4
The Act bars sale of ENDS not listed on the state Directory and restricts addition of foreign-made products unless manufactured in the United States or federally authorized. 5
The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding the plaintiffs had standing but failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge Alabama Act 7	Enforcement will cause lost profits, layoffs, and business closure.	Plaintiffs lack standing because their sales are illegal anyway.	Standing exists because enforcement will cause concrete, redressable injury. 8
Implied preemption under federal tobacco law 9	State enforcement intrudes on FDA-exclusive enforcement and is preempted.	TCA preserves broad state power over tobacco sale and distribution.	No reasonable likelihood of success on implied-preemption claim. 10
Dormant Commerce Clause challenge 11	Foreign-made-product restrictions facially discriminate against foreign commerce.	Restrictions serve health and safety, not economic protectionism.	No reasonable likelihood of success on dormant Commerce Clause claim. 12
Preliminary injunction entitlement 13	They face irreparable harm and likely merit success.	No injunction because plaintiffs cannot show likely success on the merits.	Denial of preliminary injunction affirmed. 14

Food & Drug Admin. v. Wages & White Lion Invs., L.L.C., 604 U.S. 542 (U.S. 2025) (describes FDA tobacco premarket-authorization regime and ENDS regulation 15)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (articulates injury, causation, and redressability for standing 16)
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (U.S. 2021) (monetary harms qualify as concrete injuries 17)
Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd. v. Henri-Duval Winery, L.L.C., 890 So. 2d 70 (Ala. 2003) (standing exists when challenged act negatively impacts plaintiff and business 18)
Holiday Isle, LLC v. Adkins, 12 So. 3d 1173 (Ala. 2008) (preliminary-injunction standards and deferential review 19)
Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1984) (state law is impliedly preempted when it frustrates federal objectives 20)