Alabama Supreme Court Appellate Alert: Decisions from July 2, 2026

PDF

The Alabama Supreme Court issued its weekly release list on Thursday, July 2, which included the following opinions of interest to the Alabama business community:

• Spencer v. Vapor Technology Association: the Court unanimously rejected federal challenges brought by a trade association and vape-shop company to a 2025 Alabama statute regulating vape sales, which a Montgomery trial court preliminarily enjoined. Justice Sellers’s majority opinion ruled that the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not preempt the Alabama statute, despite the keying of Alabama statutory violations to federal regulatory standards. The Court noted that the FDCA reserves states’ authority to regulate tobacco sales, and found that the Alabama statute’s mirroring of federal law was consistent, rather than in conflict, with the federal program. The Court also rejected the plaintiffs' dormant Commerce Clause argument, which was premised on provisions requiring foreign companies to obtain FDA authorizations before placing their products on a directory of vape products that can be sold in Alabama. The Court reasoned that the Legislature had offered compelling reasons for drawing this distinction between US and non-US companies, citing the Legislature’s findings that “E-liquids manufactured in foreign countries are notorious for being manufactured with . . . highly harmful chemicals to the human body” and “being fraudulently labeled to bypass customs enforcement and regulators.”
• Ex parte City of Tuskegee: the Court unanimously granted limited mandamus relief to a city and business on eight plaintiffs’ claims alleging that a city traffic ordinance unlawfully authorized it to use the company’s cameras to detect red-light violations and speeding. Justice Shaw’s majority opinion ruled that the plaintiffs’ challenges to the ordinance’s legality were moot because (1) for some of the plaintiffs, the City waived their fines and suspended their infractions’ enforcement; and (2) the other plaintiffs paid their fines and failed to challenge their infractions in municipal court as the ordinance allowed. At the same time, the Court allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with tort claims against the defendants—for negligence, misrepresentation, and invasion of privacy—in which they alleged that the city and company had shared information about their infractions with employers and rental-car companies.

If you have questions about these decisions or want to discuss any other matters relating to Alabama appellate law, please do not hesitate to reach out to any member of Maynard Nexsen’s Appellate Group.