UNBIASED - June 6, 2024: FDA Rescinds Market Ban on Juul Vaping Products, Supreme Court Issues New Decisions, Senate Fails to Move on Contraception Bill, and More.

Episode Date: June 6, 2024

1. Supreme Court Issues Three New Opinions (0:30)2. FDA Rescinds 'Marketing Denial Order' on Juul Vaping Products Officially Allowing Products to Return to Market (5:04)3. Senate Fails to Move Forward on Federal Right to Contraception Bill (8:45)4. Quick Hitters: Gilgo Beach Murder Suspect Faces More Murder Charges, SpaceX Successfully Tests Starship, Boeing Starliner Docks at ISS, President Biden Says He May Not Pardon Hunter If Convicted (10:01)Watch this episode on YouTube.Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok.All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance,

call the Conax Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is Thursday, June 6th, and this is your final news rundown of the week. Before we get into today's episode, I do just want to take a minute and give a special shout out to those of you that have either taken the time to submit a review or have shared this show with those around you. It really means a lot that you take the time and do that and express your appreciation in that way. So thank you, thank you, thank you. And without further ado, we can get right into today's stories. It's a Thursday, so we're of course starting off with some news out of the Supreme Court, which released three opinions

today. Nothing too interesting, so we won't spend a ton of time here. But as always, I like to let you know, you know, what the new law of the land is. I think it's important to talk about just so we're all aware. Two of the opinions were unanimous. One was five to four. The first decision is in a case called truck insurance versus Kaiser Gypsum. The question for the court here, and this was a bankruptcy case, but the question was whether an insurer that has financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is a party of interest that may object to a plan of reorganization under the bankruptcy code. In other words, does an insurance company that insures a now bankrupt entity have any say in how the bankrupt entity

restructures and reorganizes. And the court held unanimously that it does. The court reasoned that, quote, an insurer with financial responsibility for bankruptcy claims can be directly and adversely affected by the reorganization proceedings in myriad ways, end quote. The second decision was also unanimous. This was in a case called Connolly v. United States. Those of you in estate tax may enjoy this one, but the question for the court there was whether the proceeds of a life insurance policy taken out by a closely held corporation on a shareholder to facilitate the redemption of the shareholder's stock should be considered a corporate asset when calculating the value of the shares for

purposes of the federal estate tax. So again, this is a very niche case. Only a few of us will appreciate it, but still definitely feel like it's worth talking about because it's now Supreme Court precedent. The court held there that the corporation's obligations to redeem the shares was not a liability that decreased the value of the shares for purposes of the federal estate tax. And the third and final decision was in a case called Becerra versus San Carlos Apache tribe. This one was not unanimous. It was five to four, not necessarily along ideological lines either. I'll tell you who decided which way after I tell you a little bit about what the case was about. This was a case about a federal law called the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.

And this act allows an Indian tribe to enter into what are called self-determination contracts with the Indian Health Service to assume responsibility for healthcare programs that the Indian Health Service would otherwise operate. And the question for the court there was whether the act requires the Indian Health Service to pay contract support costs to support tribal programs funded by payments from third parties such as Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers. The majority of the justices said yes, that the act does require the Indian Health Service to pay the contract support costs that a tribe incurs when it collects and spends program income to further functions, services, activities, and programs that are transferred to it from the IHS

in a self-determination contract. The justices in the majority were Chief Justice Roberts, as well as Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson. The dissenting justices were Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito, and Barrett. So again, not necessarily along ideological lines, but five to four nonetheless. The dissenting justices argued that the relevant statutory provisions don't support the court's decision and that the court upended a long settled understanding in ruling the way that it did. If you want more on, you know, any of those three cases, I of course do have all of the opinions linked for you in the sources section.

You can always find them by either in the sources section. You can always find them by either clicking the sources link in each episode description or just by going directly to jordanismylawyer.com and navigating from there. So as I said, nothing too interesting or controversial out of the court today. With each week, as we get closer to the end of the month, the chances of getting a controversial decision go up. So thus far, the justices have only had one opinion release day per week, and it's been on Thursdays. But as we get closer and closer to the end of June, which is when they, you know, finish up and get to go home for the summer, we should, I would imagine, start getting multiple release days each week,

possibly starting as early as next week, but we will have to see. With that, let's move on to the next story. The FDA rescinded its marketing denial order on Juul Labs today. What does it mean? So about two years ago, almost exactly two years ago, actually, the FDA announced that it was taking Juul Labs e-cigarettes off the market. For those unfamiliar with the Juul brand, it's a company that sells e-cigarettes, otherwise known as vapes, because of the vapor that the product produces. And they also sell flavored pods to put into the vapes. That way, when you inhale, you get that added flavor. But the FDA's decision to pull the product in 2022 was made following a two-year review of Juul's application to sell its vape and the

accompanying pods. The FDA said in its 2022 marketing denial order that the review indicated that Juul's applications, quote, lacked sufficient evidence regarding the toxological profile of the products to demonstrate that marketing of the products would be appropriate for the protection of public health. In particular, some of the products would be appropriate for the protection of public health. In particular, some of the company's study findings raised concerns due to insufficient and conflicting data, including regarding genotoxicity and potentially harmful chemicals leaching from the company's proprietary e-liquid pods that have not been adequately addressed and precluded the FDA from completing a full toxicological risk assessment

of the products named in the company's applications, end quote. Now, importantly, that marketing denial order only pertained to commercial distribution, importation, and retail sales. It did not ban individual consumer use or possession. Nonetheless, Juul appealed the FDA's decision and was actually able to get an administrative stay from the FDA, meaning that they could still sell their products while the FDA further reviewed. So this decision today was an update to that further review and essentially lifted the initial ban that was put in place rather than temporarily suspending it as the administrative

stay had done. Now, Juul has consistently said that its product is necessary to help consumers stop smoking combustible cigarettes, but those who oppose the product say the company is using its marketing techniques and product design to appeal specifically to children and teenagers here in the United States. Just to give you some numbers, in 2021, more than 2 million American middle and high schoolers used vapes. When it comes specifically to the Juul brand, a 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey found that Juul was the most popular vape brand used by adolescents with 25% of high school users and 35% of middle school users saying it was their most used brand. In today's decision, the FDA wrote, quote, this action is being taken in part as a result of the

new case law, as well as the FDA's review of information provided by the applicant. Rescission of the marketing denial order is not an authorization or a denial and does not indicate whether the applications are likely to be authorized or denied. Rescission of the marketing denial order returns the applications to pending status under substantive review by the FDA. The FDA's regulations significantly limit what the agency can disclose regarding the content of the pending applications. The agency's continued review does not alter the fact that e-cigarette products, including those made by Juul, are required by law to have FDA authorization to be legally marketed, end quote. And just to add to that,

the FDA has not authorized dual products, which means that these dual products cannot be legally marketed, but now in accordance with today's decision, and honestly, in accordance with that stay order that was implemented shortly after the ban, the products can be sold in the marketplace. And some news from yesterday that I wasn't able to cover in yesterday's episode because the story broke later in the day, the Senate failed to defeat a filibuster that would move a bill forward to enshrine a federal right to access contraception. In short, the bill would establish a federal right to obtain contraceptives and voluntarily engage in contraception,

protect health care providers who offer it, prohibit the federal government or states from enforcing laws or standards that would get in the way of that right, and also allows the DOJ and private entities to sue to enforce the protections under the bill. But as I said, it didn't pass the filibuster because to pass the filibuster, the Senate needs at least 60 votes. The vote yesterday was 51 to 39, with most Republicans voting no. Most of the Republicans that voted against passing the filibuster called the bill a partisan stunt. They said the bill is unnecessary because the use of birth control is already protected

under Supreme Court precedent and that the bill wouldn't mean anything. Democrats, on the other hand, argue that the bill is important because Supreme Court precedent can always be overturned, like we saw with Roe v. Wade. Despite this bill not passing the filibuster, though, this measure will likely be brought up again for another vote at a later date. Now, let's finish with some quick hitters. So first, the Gilgo Beach killer suspect, Rex Heuermann, was indicted on two new murder charges, according to a court document unsealed this morning. Heuermann, a New York City architect, was initially arrested last July and charged with

murdering four women whose bodies were found along a stretch of Gilgo Beach in Long Island. However, as we found out with these unsealed documents, he's now been connected to the murders of two other women. One of those women's remains were found in 1993. The others found 10 years later in 2003. If you do want to hear more about Rex Huriman and his arrest, go ahead and check out my July 18th episode. It's nearly a year old, but all of that information is still relevant. So it's July 18th. Space X's Starship lifted off on its fourth flight test this morning in what was the company's second uncrewed test of 2024. The test flight seemingly achieved all of its objectives, which according to a company release

consisted of showcasing the reusability of the Starship vehicle, its ability to survive extreme heat while re-entering Earth's atmosphere, and its ability to execute a landing burn and soft splashdown. Elon Musk noted on X Today that although Starship lost many tiles and suffered a damaged flap, he said the flight was still an epic achievement. In a similar story, Boeing's Starliner, which we talked about yesterday, successfully docked at the International Space Station this afternoon after calling off the initial docking attempt due to a thruster issue. There are now two U.S.-built spacecraft docked with the ISS for the first time, Boeing's Starliner and SpaceX's Dragon capsule Endeavour, which is at the orbiting research laboratory. And finally, President Biden told ABC News anchor David Muir he may not pardon

Hunter if Hunter receives a guilty conviction. Muir first asked the president if he would accept the outcome of his son's trial, which the president answered yes. And Muir's follow-up question was whether Biden would rule out a pardon for Hunter, and the president again answered yes. Hunter is currently on trial for three charges related to his purchase of a firearm in 2018 while allegedly addicted to drugs. The prosecution is expected to rest either at the end of the day today or by the end of the day tomorrow. And from there, the defense will present their case.

That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here with me this week. Have a great weekend and I will talk to you on Monday.