Council for Responsible Nutrition v. James

Background

The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) filed a Motion for Clarification concerning the court’s earlier decision on CRN’s emergency motion for a preliminary injunction. CRN asked whether the statute’s age-based restrictions were limited to products that contain specified ingredients, including an ingredient approved by the Food and Drug Administration for weight loss or muscle building, a steroid, creatine, green tea extract, raspberry ketone, garcinia cambogia, or green tea coffee bean extract. CRN also asked what the court considered the statute’s “clear” meaning if that interpretation was incorrect.

Court’s Analysis

The court said CRN had misread the statute by treating the issue as an either-or choice between restrictions based on a product’s ingredients and restrictions based on what is said about or done with the product. According to the court, the statute restricts both categories of products. The court concluded that the statute and the earlier order were clear.

The court explained that clarification is generally appropriate only when a decision is unclear or ambiguous, which it found was not true here. It also said that answering questions about potential future claims would require an advisory opinion, meaning an opinion about a dispute that had not yet properly arisen. In addition, the court said that further interpretation would effectively convert CRN’s facial challenge—a challenge to the law as written and in all of its applications—into an as-applied challenge or an enforcement action. The court found that change unwarranted.

Disposition

The court DENIED Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the open motion at ECF No. 54. The opinion does not state that the case was dismissed or that the court entered a new ruling on the preliminary injunction.