Trade groups are trying to end a nearly decade-long legal battle between the cigar industry and the US FDA. Photo credit: GGuy
Two major cigar trade groups are urging a federal appeals court to revisit its January decision and end a nearly decade-long legal battle between the cigar industry and the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA).
In mid-March, Michael Edney, lead attorney for Cigar Rights of America (CRA) and the Premium Cigar Association (PCA), submitted a request to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia seeking a rehearing in the case of Cigar Association of America et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administration et al. The lawsuit, initiated in 2016, continues to influence how premium cigars are regulated.
The appeal requests that the court overturn its earlier decision, which rejected the government’s arguments—deemed a win for the industry—however, it also remanded the case to Judge Amit P. Mehta to finalize the definition of “premium cigar.” Some insiders refer to this as the “Mehta definition.”
Originally intended as a temporary measure, the definition has effectively become permanent due to the government’s legal setbacks, thereby closing the case and halting further debates over the federal definition of “premium cigar.” This definition is vital because cigars meeting its criteria are exempt from FDA deeming regulations—regulations that impose product approval requirements, advertising restrictions, and user fees.
Under the FDA’s 2020 definition, a premium cigar must meet eight criteria:
- Wrapped in whole tobacco leaf
- Contains a 100% leaf tobacco binder
- Has at least 50% long-filler tobacco by weight
- Is handmade or hand-rolled using only simple tools
- Lacks a filter, nontobacco tip, or nontobacco mouthpiece
- Contains no characterizing flavor other than tobacco
- Is made solely with tobacco, water, and vegetable gum
- Weighs more than 6 pounds per 1,000 units
Nearly every cigar sold in a humidor qualifies under this definition—except flavored cigars, which remain regulated. However, not everyone in the industry agrees on the way forward. While CRA and PCA support ending the lawsuit without further discussion on the definition, the third plaintiff—the Cigar Association of America (CAA)—disagrees. The dispute largely centers on whether flavored cigars should be included in the definition.
Edney’s filing indicates that CRA and PCA favor maintaining the status quo. He mentioned that government officials have informed him they have no plans to advocate for a different definition before Judge Mehta. In contrast, attorney Brian T. Burgess, representing CAA, contends that the appeals court’s order should stand and that Judge Mehta should finalize the definition. CAA has proposed a definition that would incorporate flavored cigars, which remains a contentious point between the groups.
Edney argues that reopening the debate is unnecessary since the government’s appeal did not challenge the definition, and CAA did not file a cross-appeal. He warns that further deliberation could confuse manufacturers and retailers.