Eastchester Tobacco & Vape Inc. v. Town of Eastchester

Background

Five businesses—Eastchester Tobacco & Vape Inc., Eastchester Service Station Inc., Eastchester Service Center Inc., Chestnut Marts Inc., and Scarsdale Auto Clinic, Inc.—sued the Town of Eastchester, the Eastchester Town Board, several named individuals, and the Town of Eastchester Police Department. They challenged the Town’s Electronic Nicotine Delivery Product Law, enacted on September 3, 2019.

The law prohibited the sale, offer for sale, or distribution of defined electronic nicotine-delivery products within the Town and required those sales to stop within six months. Violations could result in a civil fine of up to $1,000 per offense. The definition covered products containing nicotine or made partly of a tobacco substitute, including e-cigarettes, vapes, vaporizers, vape pens, e-liquids, and similar products. The law excluded certain physician-prescribed or Food and Drug Administration-approved products sold solely for approved medical or cessation purposes.

The plaintiffs alleged that the law was preempted by federal and New York law, violated the First Amendment, and was unconstitutionally vague under the federal and New York Constitutions. One plaintiff, Eastchester Tobacco & Vape Inc., also alleged that it had been cited for offering to sell component parts, such as coils or batteries, that did not contain tobacco, a tobacco substitute, or nicotine.

Rule 12(b)(6) standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion but did not accept unsupported legal conclusions. The complaint had to contain enough factual content to make liability plausible, not merely possible.

Federal preemption claim

The plaintiffs argued that the federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act preempted the Local Law. The court held that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged express preemption.

The court explained that the federal statute gives the Food and Drug Administration authority over tobacco products and contains provisions preserving some state and local authority while preempting certain requirements concerning product standards, premarket review, adulteration, misbranding, labeling, registration, manufacturing practices, and modified-risk products. The statute also preserves requirements relating to the sale, distribution, possession, access, advertising, promotion, and use of tobacco products.

The court concluded that the Local Law regulated the sale of finished products rather than their composition or manufacturing. It therefore functioned as a sales regulation, not a federally preempted tobacco-product standard. The court also held that the federal statute’s saving clause covered a complete sales ban. Accordingly, the court dismissed the federal preemption claim, identified as the Second Cause of Action.

First Amendment claim

The court dismissed the First Amendment claim, identified as the Fourth Cause of Action. Although commercial speech, such as advertising, can receive First Amendment protection, the court found that the Local Law regulated what businesses could do—sell or distribute certain products—not what they could say. The law did not prohibit advertising accurate information about products that could lawfully be sold. The court therefore concluded that the Local Law did not implicate the First Amendment.

Federal vagueness claim

The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ federal due-process vagueness claim, identified as the Fifth Cause of Action. A law may be unconstitutionally vague if ordinary people cannot reasonably understand what it prohibits or if it permits arbitrary enforcement.

Because the court found that the Local Law did not implicate First Amendment rights, it assessed the vagueness challenge only as applied to the plaintiffs’ specific conduct. The court held that Eastchester Service Station Inc., Eastchester Service Center Inc., Chestnut Marts Inc., and Scarsdale Auto Clinic, Inc. could not challenge the law as vague because they sought to sell products the law prohibited.

The court allowed Eastchester Tobacco & Vape Inc. to raise an as-applied challenge concerning component parts that did not contain tobacco, a tobacco substitute, or nicotine. But the court concluded that the company had not plausibly shown that the law failed to give ordinary people fair notice. The court read the law’s definition as limited to products containing nicotine or made partly of a tobacco substitute; the examples in the definition did not eliminate that limitation. The court also concluded that one citation for allegedly un prohibited conduct showed, at most, that the citation might have been invalid. It did not plausibly show that the law authorized arbitrary enforcement or that a widespread enforcement practice existed.

Other claims and jurisdiction

The court dismissed the remaining claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. These included the claim that the Local Law was preempted by New York law, the claim that it was vague under the New York Constitution, and claims seeking injunctive or declaratory relief. The court explained that the federal Declaratory Judgment Act and the Federal Rule governing injunctions do not independently create federal jurisdiction.

After dismissing the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—in the remaining state-law claims. The court also noted that, to the extent the plaintiffs attempted to assert a standalone claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that statute provides a procedure for seeking redress for rights established elsewhere and does not itself create substantive rights.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.