17 Questions: The Premium Cigar Industry Won the FDA Lawsuit

Seven years and one day after FDA began regulating premium cigars, it was told it no longer could regulate premium cigars. That day was yesterday.

Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia delivered his long-expected decision in Cigar Association of America et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administration et al., a seven-year-old lawsuit that was filed by the Cigar Association of America (CAA), the Cigar Rights of America (CRA) and the Premium Cigar Association (PCA), three cigar trade groups.

For the last year, this victory seemed to be on the horizon. Mehta ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor last July, finding that FDA didn’t properly evaluate whether “premium cigars” were different than other cigars and, therefore, should be regulated differently. Because this is a question of whether FDA took the necessary steps in developing the rule, losing this court case means the agency no longer has the authority to enforce the deeming regulations for “premium cigars,” at least for now.

Yesterday’s ruling was not about whether FDA did or did not properly follow the rules—Mehta ruled on that last year—rather, it was a question of what happened next. He was faced with two options:

• Vacating the Rule — This would mean that the 2016 deeming regulations would not apply to “premium cigars.” Because the deeming regulations are the foundation of FDA’s regulations for cigars, this would mean that both current and future regulations would not apply to “premium cigars” until FDA corrected the issue. FDA would have the opportunity to regulate “premium cigars,” but it would need to start the process over—comment periods, etc.—from square one.
• Remanding Without Vacatur — This would mean that Mehta would instruct FDA to fix the error it made. It could mean the regulations would not apply to “premium cigars” while FDA fixes the issue though Mehta can choose how to apply those rules. If FDA fixed the issue(s) to Mehta’s liking, FDA could then move forward with enforcing the regulations for “premium cigars.”

He chose the first option, vacating the rule. It means that so long as a cigar meets the definition of “premium cigar”—more on that below—then it is no longer subject to FDA’s regulations, at least for now.

As I have done in the past, here are some answers to some common and uncommon questions. As always, I’m not an attorney, this is not legal advice.

Before you read any further, I’d recommend doing what I did before writing this article: reading this very similar post from July 2022. It sets the stage and provides significant context for what’s below.

1. IS THIS THE END OF FDA’S REGULATION OF PREMIUM CIGARS?

If there’s only one thing you take away from reading this article: this is not permanent. 

I don’t know how temporary it might be, but the court ruling does not prevent FDA from ever regulating premium cigars. At any point, including as you are reading this, FDA could restart the process to regulate “premium cigars.” It will not have to ask the court to do so, it will not have to ask Congress to do so, and there is no double jeopardy rule that says it cannot try again. It can, and it most certainly will.

Yesterday’s ruling is a monumental win against FDA, but it is not the end of the story. The job of FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products is to regulate tobacco products. A “premium cigar” is a tobacco product which means it is on the list of things to regulate.

It would be foolish, naïve, reckless and pointless to assume that FDA is done with the premium cigar industry.

Furthermore, whenever FDA decides to regulate premium cigars, it won’t be the same set of regulations that existed prior to yesterday. It is quite likely, that if premium cigars are regulated five years from now that the same regulations that apply to other cigars will apply to premium cigars. Cigar companies should at least pay attention to new rules that FDA introduces for other tobacco products because there’s a good chance those rules will eventually apply to premium cigars as well.

2. OKAY MR. BUZZKILL, HOW LONG BEFORE FDA IS REGULATING PREMIUM CIGARS AGAIN?

I have no idea, and barring a pretty unique scenario, I’m not sure that anyone walking this planet really does.

Here’s how I envision that unique—and seemingly very unlikely—scenario going:

If for whatever reason, the Biden administration was hellbent on getting premium cigars regulated, it could instruct FDA to do so. Unless FDA was already preparing for being told this and has been drafting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, this presumably would take a couple of months to get started. There would be a 90-day comment period, FDA would need to reply those comments—and would probably be pretty sensitive about making sure it did—and then the rule would need to be announced. I don’t know the exact quickest timeline, but I suppose if it really wanted to, it could be regulating premium cigars some time in 2024.

There are many reasons to dismiss this scenario as improbable and I think you are probably safe to do so. For example: if the agency was this motivated to regulate premium cigars, why has it been so willing to delay premium cigar regulation?

Side-bar: more than a decade ago, then Vice-President Biden met with the cigar industry about regulations.

I suppose there’s also a scenario where the people inside FDA are focused on regulating premium cigars ASAP, though, again, based on the agency’s actions, that’s never been my feeling. If not those two scenarios, then I’m not sure how many people would be able to answer this question because the answer is likely dependent on knowing the results of the 2024 presidential election.

FDA is an executive agency and therefore reports to the White House, meaning that a new president could steer FDA in a different direction. In case you are wondering how different, Gov. Ron DeSantis recently proposed—and then walked back—Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as a potential nominee for the top job at FDA should DeSantis become president.

Beyond the political factors, FDA is in the process of trying to introduce four landmark tobacco policies—banning the sale of menthol cigarettes, banning the sale of flavored cigars, imposing nicotine limits on tobacco products and introducing requirements for tobacco manufacturing facilities—all things that seem far more important than regulating premium cigars. Taking away resources from any of those four initiatives or FDA’s efforts on e-cigarettes and vaping products—an area where the agency admits it has work to do—to regulate premium cigars would be very tough to envision.

As part of this lawsuit, FDA asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to study “premium cigars” and the scientific literature surrounding “premium cigars.” Last year, NASEM delivered its report and the study’s authors’ main takeaway was that there’s not a lot of data about “premium cigars.” That said, there is some data, and the data isn’t always friendly to FDA’s efforts.

As part of yesterday’s ruling, Judge Mehta brought up the NASEM report and pondered whether FDA would even try to regulate premium cigars again:

Nor is it certain, as the FDA suggests, that on remand it would again deem premium cigars. Relevant new evidence has emerged in the years since the agency’s action. Most notably, in 2021, the FDA contracted with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) “to conduct a comprehensive and systematic assessment and review of the scientific literature and provide a final report of the study results” concerning the usage patterns and health effects of premium cigar smoking.5 In March 2022, the NASEM released its report, and it contains important findings that may bear on the deeming question. See, e.g., Pl.’s Supplemental Mem., ECF No. 265, Ex. A, ECF No. 265-1 (NASEM report), at 11–13, 15–18. On remand, the agency “may wish” to consider this and other new evidence and seek comment before acting. Union Elec. Co. v. FERC, 890 F.2d 1193, 1196 (D.C. Cir. 1989). The court will not hazard a guess at how the agency would come out if it were to consider new evidence.

I don’t take this to mean Mehta thinks that the NASEM report shows that FDA wouldn’t try to regulate premium cigars again.

My takeaway about the NASEM report and the data regarding “premium cigars” is two-fold:

1. There’s more data than there was in 2014, though there’s not any more data that shows that premium cigars are unhealthy or used by kids.
2. This court case was decided by a judge that was unwilling to let FDA use data about all cigars to talk about “premium cigars.”

Point two might be the easiest way to understand this lawsuit and I suspect it will become the leading talking point for the premium industry going forward: just because these two products are both called “cigars,” it doesn’t mean the products are all that similar.

I’m a big believer in history, so my best guess is that FDA will leave premium cigars alone until the agency gets sued over that approach. A lawsuit is what led FDA to accelerate its deadlines for product approval under deeming regulations and a lawsuit is what spurred the recent actions towards banning menthol cigarettes.

3. What is a “Premium Cigar”

A premium cigar is defined as a product that meets all of the following criteria:

1. is wrapped in whole tobacco leaf;
2. contains a 100 percent leaf tobacco binder;
3. contains at least 50 percent (of the filler by weight) long filler tobacco (i.e., whole tobacco leaves that run the length of the cigar);
4. is handmade or hand rolled (i.e., no machinery was used apart from simple tools, such as scissors to cut the tobacco prior to rolling);
5. has no filter, non-tobacco tip, or non-tobacco mouthpiece;
6. does not have a characterizing flavor other than tobacco;
7. contains only tobacco, water, and vegetable gum with no other ingredients or additives;
8. and weighs more than 6 pounds per 1,000 units.

In short: flavored cigars of all shapes and sizes are not “premium,” and machine-made cigars—including those J.C. Newman makes in Tampa—are not “premium.” Other than that, pretty much any other “cigar” is probably a “premium cigar.”

(It would also appear that most Toscano products would not meet this definition as they do not use a binder.)

4. HOW BIG OF A DEAL IS YESTERDAY’S DECISION?

Here’s what I wrote in July 2022 after Mehta’s ruling then:

This is currently a 9/10 and it could be a 10/10.

I’m not sure if we are at the 10/10 level—that would presumably need to include stopping/winning any appeals and also getting back the user fee payments—but let’s call this a 9.7/10.

Premium cigars are the only tobacco product that isn’t subject to FDA’s deeming regulation. After years of fighting to have Congress grant the cigar industry an exemption, the exemption more or less came, just via the courts.

Yes, it’s not the same as if Congress did it. No, it’s not permanent. I think there are ways to nitpick calling this a 10/10: it took a long time and millions of dollars to get here, FDA could still regulate premium cigars, user fees haven’t been returned yet, flavored cigars aren’t included, etc. But given where things stood in 2020, this is more or less the best realistic outcome, and it’s certainly not one to scoff at.

5. IN PRACTICAL TERMS, WHAT CHANGED YESTERDAY?

If you are…

• a cigar consumer — not much.
• a cigar retailer — I don’t know what would happen to a retailer that only sells premium cigars and no other tobacco products, would that retailer still be subject to FDA compliance checks? I can’t imagine there are many retailers that sell only premium cigars and not pipe tobacco, flavored cigars or cigarettes, but perhaps there is one.
• a cigar manufacturer — you may or may not be paying user fees on cigars you import today, more on user fees below. Beyond that, nothing immediately changes other than you can rest easy knowing that, at least for the moment, you aren’t going to have to worry about FDA regulations for premium cigars.
• a supplier to cigar manufacturers — similar to the above.

6. IN PRACTICAL TERMS, WHAT CHANGES TOMORROW?

It’s more about what’s not changing for the foreseeable future.

• Premium cigars will not be subject to FDA premarket product approval — this means cigar companies avoid what was expected to be costly testing procedures. For consumers, it also means cigar companies can continue to release new premium cigars without having to get approval from FDA.
• Premium cigars will not be subject to FDA’s user fees — These are fees paid by tobacco products to help fund FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products; these fees are generally around 5 cents per cigar.
• Future FDA Laws Won’t Impact Premium Cigars — Those FDA plans for imposing nicotine limits on tobacco products and introducing new rules for tobacco manufacturing facilities won’t apply for premium cigars. Those two agenda items are just two things that the agency has said it’s working on, there could be other additional rules that get introduced, and so long as FDA hasn’t properly deemed premium cigars, those rules will not apply to premium cigars.

7. WILL FDA APPEAL?

Technically, will the Department of Justice—which represents FDA in legal matters—appeal?

It’s unclear at this time. Appeals may be filed up to 60 days following the decision, so check back in October. FDA says it has a policy of not commenting on litigation, so it has not tipped its hand there.

8. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR FLAVORED CIGARS?

More or less nothing.

Flavored cigars aren’t included in the definition of “premium cigars,” so the existing FDA regulations still apply to flavored cigars.

A different outcome in this lawsuit likely changes the precise trajectory of flavored cigar regulations, so I hesitate to say that it means absolutely nothing. That said, FDA has said that it intends to announce bans on flavored cigars and menthol cigarettes as early as this fall. Those bans are unlikely to take effect for at least one year and there will almost certainly be litigation in opposition to those bans, which are technically two separate matters.

It seems very clear to me that FDA will announce a ban on flavored cigars, companies will sue, and a court(s) will decide whether those bans go into effect. It also seems likely that companies like Drew Estate, Miami Cigar & Co. and Rocky Patel—companies that sell larger flavored cigars—are going to have a tough time getting overshadowed in this fight as companies like Swisher (Drew Estate’s parent company), Swedish Match (maker of White Owl) and others will have far more at stake and deeper pockets when this fight hits the courtroom.

9. WILL CIGAR COMPANIES GET THE MONEY THEY’VE PAID TO FDA BACK?

That money is called “user fees,” and the answer is unclear at this moment.

User fees are collected by FDA to fund the Center for Tobacco Products. Each year, CTP has a budget—for FY2023, it’s $712 million—which is funded by the companies that sell various tobacco products that CTP regulates, albeit, with the notable exception of e-cigarettes and vaping products. How much each company pays is calculated using a formula explained here, in short: it’s somewhat proportional to how much a company sells compared to other companies. For those wondering, these fees have been around 5 cents per cigar, though it has varied over time.

Because Judge Mehta found that FDA didn’t follow the proper steps to regulate premium cigars, that means that premium cigars should not have been regulated from Aug. 8, 2016-Aug. 9, 2023. Even Mehta acknowledged that cigar companies are going to want these user fees back, though his decision didn’t deal with refunding the money one way or the other.

For its part, the Premium Cigar Association (PCA) has suggested that companies can use this portal to get back money. It’s unclear at this time if that’s the proper place. Some companies have indicated that they are expecting more litigation to get user fees refunded.

It also seems possible that premium cigar companies will continue to be sent user fee bills, possibly for another year or so, even if FDA agrees to refund the user fees. Because user fees are billed around a year after the products are imported, I can see a scenario where those bills are sent out for the time being.

One thing I’m curious about: if FDA gives refunds, does that mean it will charge the other tobacco companies to make up the lost revenue? Does it mean that it would only charge other cigar companies for their non-premium products?

I’ve yet to hear of a similar example of a mass refunding of FDA user fees, so I’m not sure anyone knows how this process will go.

10. WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR USER FEE REFUNDS?

If you have to ask, probably not you.

User fees are tied to the TTB license, so if you are a retailer, you are probably not eligible for refunds unless you are importing your own cigars under your own license. If you are a consumer, you are not getting a user fee refund.

11. WILL THIS MEAN THE PRICE OF CIGARS WILL GO DOWN?

LOL. No.

While it’s true that some cigar companies announced price increases due to these regulations—including companies that announced multiple price increases in 2016—cigar companies are not known for lowering prices.

Furthermore, the costs of other things have gone up, notably the cost of tobacco.

12. HOW MUCH DID THIS LAWSUIT COST?

Millions of dollars. I don’t know if it exceeded $10 million, but millions with an M and an S.

13. WHO PAID FOR IT?

You don’t want to know how the sausage is made.

In 2016, three cigar trade groups filed a joint lawsuit. Those trade groups are:

• Cigar Association of America
• Cigar Rights of America
• Premium Cigar Association (then known as the International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association)

Nearly from the start, the groups disagreed about a lot of things: what the litigation should cover, where it should be litigated, who should be litigating it, and of course, who should be paying for the litigation.

Through the first half of 2020, the litigation had mixed results. There were some very clear losses (and more on the horizon in 2021) but also some wins. Many parts of the deeming regulations had been delayed—both in general and also specifically for premium cigars—and two different federal courts struck down the deeming regulations’ requirement for cigar warning labels in 2020.

There is no question that all three groups spent resources on the litigation, but the groups spent a lot of time bickering about who paid for what.

Through 2020, the CRA and PCA paid the bills generated by Michael Edney, who has been the lead counsel for most of this litigation. Each organization spent millions of dollars funding the litigation through 2020.

The Cigar Association of America has long balked at the idea that it should be paying one-third of Edney’s bills because it said it never agreed to do so in the first place. The group has a long list of complaints with this idea ranging from how and how much Edney bills to a hesitancy to spend money on litigation that only helps premium cigars. (CAA’s membership includes companies that do not sell any premium cigars.) The CAA has offered alternatives, both alternative strategies and alternative help, i.e. legal work that doesn’t come from Michael Edney. That said, for most of the lawsuit’s history, the CRA and PCA have been frustrated by what they believe is the CAA reneging on its commitment, a commitment CAA contends never included splitting the costs of Edney’s bills equally.

Instead, CAA’s contention is that it agreed to split the work but not the costs, and it has supported the work.

Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, PCA 2020 was canceled and the PCA’s revenue and cash flow were taking massive hits. As a result, the Premium Cigar Association was in the midst of furloughing staff members and cutting costs like outside lobbying.

Even without COVID-19, the Premium Cigar Association was going to be in the red in 2020. In the three years prior to this lawsuit, the PCA was averaging less than $37,000 per year in legal spending. In the first three years after the lawsuit was filed, that average annual legal spend increased to $938,000. The massive increase in legal bills did not coincide with increases in revenue for the PCA. As such, from 2017-2019, the organization was averaging losses of $819,700 annually.

---

Beyond the disagreements in who should, would or could pay what, there was also a difference of opinion on whether this particular legal argument—that the rule should be thrown out for premium cigars because FDA ignored evidence during the rulemaking process—was worth spending money on in the first place. I’m told that even amongst supporters, this was viewed as a 50/50 shot while others viewed this as having no chance of working.

At some point in 2020, sources—from multiple sides—say the PCA informed CRA that it would not be partaking in funding Edney’s work to argue this part of the case. In addition to the PCA’s cash flow issues, I recall being told at the time that the PCA considered this to be a manufacturer’s issue and, therefore, something CRA should take the lead on.

As such, funding this argument was very different than how the lawsuit had been paid for up until this point.

• It was a flat fee of $500,495 for Edney — Prior to this, Edney’s work was paid for using an hourly billing system. This time, a flat fee for this litigation was negotiated.
• The CRA paid all of the $500,495 — Prior to this, CRA and PCA would split Edney’s bills.

What all of this means is that 10 family-owned cigar companies were, almost exclusively, responsible for funding what ended up being the winning argument(s). They are:

• Alec Bradley*
• Arturo Fuente
• Ashton
• J.C. Newman
• La Flor Dominicana
• My Father
• Oliva
• Padrón
• Rocky Patel
• Tatuaje

*Earlier this year, Alec Bradley was purchased by STG, so it is no longer a family-owned cigar company. For the purposes of this storytelling, Alec Bradley should be included.

Those 10 companies should get to do a victory lap, and if you care about cigars, you should be thankful for them. I’m not sure what would happen if those 10 companies balked at this part of the litigation, let alone earlier parts of the litigation. Would CAA and PCA have picked up the torch? Would other companies have filled the void? Would there be some alternate cigar manufacturers organization? 

Who knows, but I wouldn’t like rolling that dice.

14. WHY AREN’T MORE COMPANIES PART OF/GIVING TO THE CRA?

If you are a company that makes premium cigars and you choose not to be part of the CRA, I’d like to know why.

Yesterday, I got a text message from someone at one of those 10 companies that said:

Don’t make it sound like CAA had anything to do with it. They flat out said it was a waste of money.

It was hardly the only text I got from a CRA board member that mentioned that CAA and, to a lesser extent, PCA shouldn’t get the same sort of credit for yesterday’s win. Just last month, I listened to Rocky Patel and Carlos “Carlito” Fuente Jr. get on a microphone and complain about how most cigar companies don’t directly support the fight. The problem? Almost everyone in the audience was from one of the other CRA member companies.

CRA has gotten the results. In this particular instance, CRA’s decision to fund this argument seems to be the difference between premium cigars being regulated by FDA and premium cigars not being regulated by FDA. The issue CRA seems to have is outreach. I’d argue that it’s not consistent and persistent enough in said outreach.

No, CRA is not the NRA for cigars. No, CRA is not a consumer organization. I don’t know why it needs to be that. The premium cigar manufacturers—as evidenced by things ranging from SCHIP I to yesterday’s decision—need a trade group, CRA is functioning as that. It’s not going to be perfect. There will be awkwardness over how to approach issues like large flavored cigars or taxes. But if you’re a premium cigar manufacturer, you are better off in a world where CRA exists than one without it.

15. WHY DIDN’T THE PCA PAY FOR THIS PART OF THE LITIGATION?

The PCA spent millions of dollars on funding this lawsuit and it should be celebrated for doing so.

But then it made a choice to not fund this particular legal strategy, which ended up being the most consequential part of the litigation as a whole. That was a choice and that choice highlights my largest gripe with the PCA: why should a small group of (mostly) retailers decide, often in secret, what to do with the money that comes primarily from cigar manufacturers?

• The PCA is an organization that is funded primarily with money from cigar companies. I would venture to guess that retailers contribute around 5 percent of the organization’s annual revenue. I would be very surprised if retailers contributed 10 percent of the PCA’s revenue.
• The PCA’s Executive Committee contains five retailers and one manufacturer. The PCA’s Board of Directors contains nine retailers and four manufacturers.

I would venture to guess that many, if not most, PCA members do not know that the PCA opted not to directly fund this part of the legal strategy. To my knowledge, it never told its membership it was sitting this one out financially. (I reached out to a few retailers, they were unaware. Furthermore, I’m a dues-paying PCA member and don’t recall getting notified about this in 2020.)

It raises so many questions. Should the PCA have sat out of funding this piece of the litigation? Why didn’t PCA tell its members? If the PCA chose to not spend money here, what was that money used for instead? How should the PCA decide what to prioritize? Should the PCA have “refunded” CRA back for half of Edney’s fee?

Most importantly, who should make these decisions? What kind of people, how many people, etc.

I imagine most of its membership—both retailers and manufacturers—would be disappointed to learn that the PCA chose to sit out funding this part of the litigation.

As much as the premium cigars manufacturers need a trade organization of their own, the retailers need a retail organization that is funded primarily by retailers. That’s not the PCA and I don’t see how this changes so long as most the PCA’s revenue comes from its trade show. So long as the PCA is controlled by retailers but funded by manufacturers, things like this are going to happen, and I don’t think the industry, collectively, benefits from this awkward arrangement.

For those wondering, the PCA ended the year with $3.2 million in net assets; that same time period, the CRA ended the year with -$16,201 in net assets.

16. SHOULD WE NOW NEGOTIATE WITH FDA?

Longtime readers of these columns may know that I have long argued that negotiating a long-term framework with FDA is better than just waiting to see what happens.

Not today.

Given the position that premium cigars are in right now, I think it would be best to keep the door closed on regulation as long as possible. Yes, it would be beneficial to negotiate softer rules regarding things like product testing, but it seems unlikely that the cigar industry could negotiate long-term rules that would protect it from future regulations like nicotine limits or tobacco manufacturing standards.

Put another way: how could FDA create more relaxed nicotine limit rules for premium cigars in a world where it hasn’t finalized the rules to begin with?

17. I AM MORE CONCERNED WITH MARKETING TO CHILDREN THAN EVER BEFORE

There are three broad mandates for the Center for Tobacco Products:

• Preventing people from starting to use tobacco products
• Encouraging people who use tobacco to quit
• Reducing the harm caused by tobacco use

The first one of those largely centers around limiting youth access to tobacco and nicotine products.

If I was running FDA and tasked with getting premium cigars regulated, I would bypass the public health discussion altogether. Why deal with questions about whether the evidence shows all-cause mortality rates for premium cigar users are the same as non-smokers if you don’t have to ask them? Instead, I would focus on the examples I can find of premium cigar packaging that resembles candy, ice cream, cartoon characters, soda, etc. If FDA can prove that cigar companies have products that are packaged in a way that makes them uniquely attractive to children, that’s probably enough to restart regulation.

And remember, “marketing to children” is not about whether a kid buys a cigar. FDA has taken issue with “companies marketing e-liquids that imitate packaging for food products that are often marketed and appeal to youth, such as cereal and soda, or feature kid-friendly cartoon characters such as unicorns.” Sound familiar?

---

A brief note.

I have written many words about FDA over the years. Some of them have turned out to be very wrong; at no point have I been more thrilled to be wrong than with this. I wondered if a day like yesterday ever came, would I feel a sense of relief? I don’t. I am genuinely happy for the cigar companies and retailers whose lives are made easier going forward. I’m especially happy for the CRA member companies, who decided to make it a priority to be committed to helping the industry.

But I am not relieved.

First, the status quo regulations for premium cigars that existed as of Aug. 8, 2023 were not all that much. Thanks in large part to previous litigation as part of this lawsuit, premium cigars were barely regulated by FDA. Furthermore, the writing was on the wall 13 months ago that this was the likely outcome.

Second, I know that this isn’t over. Here’s how I closed out a post seven years and a day ago, the first day of FDA’s regulation of premium cigars:

I’ll never forget the advice I got from Marvin Samel of Drew Estate years ago: it won’t be the first round that kills you. Samel’s thoughts are that for most companies the first round of regulation won’t be too taxing, however, the subsequent regulations will begin to really affect the business.

Simply put, once you open the door to regulation, it becomes very challenging to shut it.

Aug. 8, 2016 marks the day the federal government decided it was okay to regulate cigars and despite whatever happens in Congress or the courts, it’s likely that the government’s desire to regulate cigars won’t ever go away.

Update — An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that this would have an effect on the federal Tobacco 21 standard. That is a separate law. 

Update (Aug. 11, 2023) — I have added a clarification that CAA’s position includes that it never agreed to pay one-third of Michael Edney’s bills.