Whether the Tobacco Control Act expressly preempts state and local laws that prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products

QUESTION PRESENTED Twice in the last two decades, this Court has reversed the Ninth Circuit for allowing states and localities to use sales bans to evade express federal preemption of state and local standards. In Engine Manufacturers, this Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that California could escape preemption of state vehicle emissions “standards” by banning the purchase (but not the manufacture) of cars that did not meet the state standards. Engine Mfrs. Ass'n v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 541 U.S. 246, 254 (2004). The Court held that “a standard is a standard even when not enforced through regulation.” Jd. Similarly, in National Meat, this Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that California could avoid express preemption of state manufacturing standards by framing the state law as a sales ban. Nat? Meat Ass’n v. Harris, 565 U.S. 452, 464 (2012). To hold otherwise “would make a mockery of the [Act’s] preemption provision.” Id. As Judge Nelson explained in dissenting from the decision below, the Ninth Circuit has now committed the same error for a third time, by “allow[ing] states and municipalities to defeat [the] entire purpose” of the federal Tobacco Control Act’s express preemption of state and local product standards “with a sales ban.” Pet.App.36a (Nelson, J. dissenting). The question presented is: Whether the Tobacco Control Act expressly preempts state and local laws that prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products.